I'd go for that too. (IMHO) the problem with a flat tax is there is enormous wealth tied up in equity (stocks, real estate, REIT, hedge funds, etc). A wealthy person could sit on appreciating assets making a ton of money, but on paper they're making zero if they don't sell. I could see a system where they'd be taxed income on the appreciation (or book losses) annually.
How much you value innovation is subjective and a double edged sword. For example, there is a new gene therapy coming out (can't remember what it cures) cost is ~$2.5mil per patient. Of course insurance will cover that and that means everybody's premiums go up. So great, we're saving people and there's your innovation, but that's a pretty steep price tag. Same thing with serious illness survival rates, how much are we spending, how long are they are surviving, etc? Would these funds be better spent increasing access?
I'd tax you on appreciation annually. If your home appreciates from $400 to $440 you get taxed on $40k. Next your home goes up another $40k, you get taxed another $40k. I would let you deduct home improvements although that would break the "no deductions" rule.
You are taxed on your house repeatedly. I just wrote a 1800$ check for taxes on my house. Next year it’ll be relatively the same. That’s the thing. We are over taxed in alot of areas and not taxed enough in others. Ive lived in my house for 12 years, and have paid a little over 18,000$ in taxes in that time.
So you'd essentially punish people for working towards home ownership...and dampen the home construction market at the same time...costing plenty of jobs while increasing the value of current stock which you'd increasingly tax...putting a larger burden on the inventors of available remtal properties with increased demand...which increaes the monthly rent...also you'd lower the return on owners who rent out housing taking away incentive to tent out said properties...
How is it punishment to pay taxes on your appreciation annually rather than a big lump sum when you sell? People would stop buying homes because they have to pay taxes annually instead of in a lump sum? But lets assume you're right and dampens demand (like Trump killing the mortgage interest deduction was supposed to do). Rents would skyrocket, which would encourage homeownership and the market would correct itself. And why wouldn't people rent out there properties in a market with increasing demand?
Millions of people are already living paycheck to paycheck and behind on taxes. If a home (or other asset) dropped in value, you could offset income or carry the loss forward like we do today.
That’s correct and what happens when they can’t pay this tax, they lose their house? If a person takes a loss, that means just like a business, you take that loss on your income for the year. If a person say paid taxes on $75,000 of income and their house drops $75,000 that year, that means they are going to get all the money they paid back in a tax return
. Same deal if you tax stocks that aren’t sold. It’s a gamble for the government cause if it ever crashes, or some do very badly in the market, they can take that as a loss. That loss comes off your year to date. I do it with my business all the time, done it with my other businesses in the past. This can actually fluck the irs too cause people are smart and figure this stuff out 
. The majority of people in this country would never be ok with this. Democrats mentioned this before and it was a none starter.$18,000 in 12 years? You lucky dog.
