You're certainly not the first to raise this objection. I get why people react this way: they'll look for any way they can to shoot down a proposal that would

You're certainly not the first to raise this objection. I get why people react this way: they'll look for any way they can to shoot down a proposal that would have them paying more taxes. So even though the objection you're raising is not, in fact, true, it's a lie people would want to believe. I know it would take a sea change in sentiment to enact this proposal post-Prop. 13. (I don't know that such a sea change is impossible in the long run, which is why I'm talking about this now, but I understand that it won't happen soon.) But if we imagine ourselves back in 1978, and if the structure I'm suggesting had been the proposal on the table instead of Prop. 13 as it was, it would have passed easily, being a clear improvement on the status quo ante. There would have been no case in which someone would have paid more tax, or done so at a less convenient time, than under the previous system -- quite the contrary. So it would have been totally possible then. But again, given that Prop. 13 exists in its present form, the modification I'm proposing is a tough sell. Maybe we'd have to stipulate that the amount of the lien will be limited to 1/2 of the gain on the sale, after commissions, and would be zero in the case of a loss. BTW, I'm attempting to respond constructively to your post on principle, but I don't feel yours was offered in the same spirit.