The suggestions for how to fix it that usually get tossed around aren't really simplifying anything; they're making it more complicated, in many cases intentionally (to be deliberately ridiculous). They make writing look weird and hard to read (and create problems for how to produce some characters on our keyboards/computers) by making a lot of changes that don't really need to be. Not every single thing that's a bit odd really needs to be "fixed". Truly simplifying our spelling would only require a few specific changes to undo the most widespread problems (contradictions), leaving most words with little or no change at all but still making our system generally as sensible and self-consistent as other European languages are. Some examples of oddities that don't really need to change and might make the transition harder on ourselves than necessary (and create undue resistance) if we did try to change them:
- Inventing new letters (or assigning "unnecessary" current ones like C/Q/X) for sounds that currently take two (TH, CH, SH, NG)
- Adding diacritical marks for various cases where letters alone might not tell you absolutely everything
- Use of silent W and Y to clarify pronunciation of an adjacent vowel, especially at the end of a word, like "say" and "saw" and "few"; sometimes we would need a way to indicate those, and the one we're used to is just as good as another new way we could invent
- Losing silent final E in general (not just the few exceptions to their "rule"); nothing wrong with the silent final E rule as long as it's applied consistently
- Losing various other random silent letters scattered throughout the language like in "doubt", or especially vowels in the middle of a word that would add another syllable if they were pronounced, like in "wolves"; dropping them shouldn't be called "wrong" (and I'll do it in my example below), but insisting on it mite be just not worth the bother.
- Replacement of vowels that get a schwa-like pronunciation with something like U or OO or a schwa symbol; that would be a LOT of vowels to change, and sometimes we use them in recognizing a word, especially a short word
- Replacing OO with U; it makes sense, but why bother? The way it is isn't contradicting anything.
- Replacing vocalized S with Z in absolutely all cases; there are just too many cases now, so it would end up looking silly
- Replacing C with S and K, and dropping it or using it for something else like CH's sound; other European languages get by just fine with some complications for this letter, and so can ours
- Changing the final TION/SION on a lot of words; it's only one rule; learn it once and you can reuse it over and over for all cases like it, so it's not putting a burden on anyone like long lists of special cases and contradictions do
- Using ZH/DH for the vocal counterparts to SH/TH
If you don't try to go after every little thing like that , fixing things that make a logical mess on a large scale can be done with relatively few changes, like this:
- Replace all instances of GH (that aren't actually pronounced as a G and an H, which is rare) with the letter(s) for whatever sound is actually there now, including simply deleting the GH if it's silent.
- Eliminate all single-sound (non-diphthong) cases of EA, EI, IE, OU, and OW, to be replaced with whatever vowel represents the actual sound in each case. No more cases of EI at all! IE can stick around only for the same diphthong that I represents alone... think of it as a silent E after a long vowel, just with no consonant between, like in "due" and "sue" and "oboe".
- Eliminate silent finale Es that don't affect a preceding vowel, C, or G... and maybe even with those latter two, although that would force us to switch from C or G to S, SS, Ç, or J in those cases. In the numerous "le" endings, the E could be moved to before the L, or just dropped.
- Final I and Y: Use I for the sound in "alibi" and "defy", and Y for the one in all those adjectives and adverbs that already end with Y; pluralize/conjugate final-Y words by just adding the D/S.
Notice how common some of these simple changes already are in settings where people aren't worried about an English teacher with a red pen, such as signs directing drivers to where the "drive-thru" is and names of products which are supposed to be "lite" in some way or the "rite" way to do something. So almost all we'd need to do is just let people feel more free to do what they already want to do; just let things be spelled as they sound, as it was don a few centuries ago, before we got stuck in the idea that some spellings are right or wrong by some arbitrary non-phonetic standard.
There would still be a few inconsistencies left, like the leftover words that didn't get shifted by the Great Vowel Shift, some post-GVS imports, and words that are anomalous regardless of the GVS anyway like "one" and "women". But the changes I suggested above would leave so few of those behind that it would be simple to just change those words' spellings separately. Most cases, like the word "doubt" that I used above, wuldn't even need any official solution at all; just let peepl spell them the way they sound without telling them it's wrong, and they'll do it bi phonetics, which will be the new rite way. (Or we could just decide to live with them as they are, since having a handful of exceptions is still better than having the large amount we've got now.)
Now, an example of what some real text would look like with these changes, so you can see that it doesn't take anything really radical to make English phonetics make sense and the right set of changes can be quite unobtrusive: here is (I hope) this post, word for word, simply transliterated as I've just suggested:
The suggestions for how tu fix it that usually get tossd around arn't reely simplifiing anything; they'r making it mor complicated, in many cases intentionally (tu be deliberatly ridiculus). They make writing look weerd and hard tu rede (and create problems for how tu produce som caracters on our keboards/computers) bi making a lot ov changes that don't reely need tu be. Not every singl thing that's a bit odd reely needs tu be "fixd". Truly simplifiing our spelling wuld only require a few specific changes tu undu the most widespred problems (contradictions), leeving most words with littl or no change at all but still making our system generally as sensibl and self-consistent as other European languages ar. Som examples ov odditys that don't reely need tu change and mite make the transition harder on ourselvs than necessary (and create undue resistance) if we did tri tu change them:
- Inventing new letters (or assining "unnecessary" current wons like C/Q/X) for sounds that currently take two (TH, CH, SH, NG)
- Adding diacritical marks for varius cases wher letters alone mite not tell yu absolutely everything
- Use ov silent W and Y tu clarifi pronunciation ov an adjacent vowel, especially at the end ov a word, like "say" and "saw" and "few"; somtimes we wuld need a way tu indicate those, and the won we'r used tu is just as good as another new way we culd invent
- Loosing silent final E in general (not just the few exeptions tu their "rule"); nothing wrong with the silent final E rule as long as it's applied consistently
- Loosing varius other random silent letters scatterd thruout the language like in "doubt", or especially vowels in the middl ov a word that wuld add another syllabl if they wer pronounced, like in "wolves"; dropping them shuldn't be calld "wrong" (and I'll do it in mi exampl belo), but insisting on it mite be just not worth the bother.
- Replacement ov vowels that get a shwa-like pronunciation with somthing like U or OO or a schwa symbol; that wuld be a LOT of vowels to change, and somtimes we use them in recognizing a word, especially a short word
- Replacing OO with U; it makes sens, but why bother? The way it is isn't contradicting anything.
- Replacing vocalized S with Z in absolutely all cases; ther ar just too many cases now, so it wuld end up looking silly
- Replacing C with S and K, and dropping it or using it for somthing els like CH's sound; other European languages get bi just fine with som complications for this letter, and so can ours
- Changing the final TION/SION on a lot ov words; it's only won rule; lern it wonce and you can reuse it over and over for all cases like it, so it's not putting a burden on anywon like long lists ov special cases and contradictions du
- Using ZH/DH for the vocal counterparts tu SH/TH
If you don't tri tu go after every littl thing like that , fixing things that make a logical mess on a large scale can be dun with relativly few changes, like this:
- Replace all instances ov GH (that arn't actually pronounced as a G and an H, which is rare) with the letter(s) for whatever sound is actually ther now, including simply deleting the GH if it's silent.
- Eliminate all singl-sound (non-diphthong) cases ov EA, EI, IE, OU, and OW, tu be replaced with whatever vowel represents the actual sound in eech case. No more cases ov EI at all! IE can stick around only for the same diphthong that I represents alone... think ov it as a silent E after a long vowel, just with no consonant between, like in "due" and "sue" and "oboe".
- Eliminate silent final Es that don't affect a preceding vowel, C, or G... and maybe even with those latter two, altho that wuld force us tu switch from C or G tu S, SS, Ç, or J in those cases. In the numerus "le" endings, the E culd be moovd to befor the L, or just dropd.
- Final I and Y: Use I for the sound in "alibi" and "defy", and Y for the won in all those adjectivs and adverbs that alreddy end with Y; pluralize/conjugate final-Y words bi just adding the D/S.
Notiss how common som ov these simpl changes alreddy ar in settings wher peepl arn't worryd about an English teecher with a red pen, such as sines directing drivers tu wher the "drive-thru" is and names ov products which ar supposed tu be "lite" in som way or the "rite" way tu du somthing. So almost all we'd need tu du is just let peepl feel mor free tu du what they alreddy want tu du; just let things be spelld as they sound, as it was dun a few centurys ago, befor we got stuck in the idea that som spellings ar rite or wrong bi som arbitrary non-phonetic standard.
Ther wuld still be a few scatterd inconsistencys left, like the leftover words that didn't get shifted bi the Grate Vowel Shift, som post-GVS imports, and words that ar anomalus regardless ov the GVS anyway like "one" and "women". But the changes I suggested abov wuld leev so few ov those behind that it wuld be simple tu just change those words' spellings separatly. Most cases, like the word "dout" that I used abov, wuldn't even need any official solution at all; just let peepl spell them the way they sound without telling them it's wrong, and they'll do it bi phonetics, which will be the new rite way. (Or we culd just decide tu liv with them as they ar, since having a handful ov exeptions is still better than having the large amount we'v got now.)
Now, an exampl ov what som reel text wuld look like with these changes, so you can see that it dosn't take anything reely radical tu make English phonetics make sens and the rite set of changes can be quite unobtrusiv: here is (I hope) this post, word for word, simply transliterated as I'v just suggested:
by 
