In the end, the agriculture subsidies was reduced (from 42% of the budget to 38%, and the budget as a whole was reduced as well) which is a step in the right direction. I don't feel the total need to be reduced as it's pretty low but the money really needs to be spent on better things.
What I noticed is that some important science/technology programmes got less money.
Any taxation by EU will remove taxation possibilities from the national governments since you can only have so much total tax pressure. Less taxation power (either to increase or decrease) means less room of manoeuvre for political parties to realize policies once in government. A lot of the ideas that makes left different from right are in the end expressed as changes in taxation in one direction or the other. Reducing that possibility makes national politics somewhat pointless and is thus a threat against democracy.
I don't see how. It is actually an expansion of democracy, since as Mise pointed out, if the EU actually had some proper income of its own, controlled by the European Parliament, then maybe people would actually start caring more about European-level politics. The EU could then work better as the high-level government that's here to correct and support individual member states.
Besides that 1% would be easy to increase once it's established. Sweden now have 25% VAT and it didn't start that high.
1% is nothing in terms of the overall tax burden imposed by the member states, yet it would give the EU serious money to spend on the good things (hopefully not agricultural subsidies).
The EU shouldn't exist. Its immoral to make taxpayers subsidize other countries, and the irresponsible nations have no right to the money of the less irresponsible nations.
Besides your obviously twisted notions of morality ("it is obviously immoral for friends to help each other" aka "I hope all those poor people die in a dump"), I have to object to your insinuation that taxpayers are forced to subsidize other countries.
Unless you believe that all taxation is criminal, which you very well might in the fairy tale land where you live, then the money which go to the EU go there based on the decisions of legally and legitimately elected governments.
Subsidizing other countries is, moreover, often in the national interest of the donor countries. Germany may pay for better infrastructure in Poland, which in turn boosts Polish economy, which boosts German-Polish trade, which in the end makes German companies more competitive and successful, which means they hire more people and pay more taxes. Win-win.
The alternative is the American approach, also known as "screw Latin America", which has worked so well that the whole world seeks to emulate it... not.
If it finishes first, it will get one more tech for free 
I suggest we pick nuclear fusion.
