Say I bought a computer, which I use to do my work on. Then I have a dry spell with little work so I get poor and can't afford to buy a new computer. But it's ok cause I use the one I got. I still valuate the computer at or above market rates, because I need it.
But what's preventing someone with more money than me from threatening to buy it from me unless I do X for them, or just to be a jerk? Without the computer I lose my ability to do my job, further driving me into poverty.
Am I missing something here?
edit: basically what I wonder is, what prevents this scheme from getting weaponized, and how does it deal with wealth asymmetry?
Point taken. However that still leaves the possibility that I no longer am able to pay taxes according to current market rates.
edit: Basically it assumes the object is available on the market, and it's available for the price I can afford to valuate it at. How does one prevent this tax scheme from being weaponized when one of those two assumptions are not valid?
But what's preventing someone with more money than me from threatening to buy it from me unless I do X for them, or just to be a jerk? Without the computer I lose my ability to do my job, further driving me into poverty.
Am I missing something here?
edit: basically what I wonder is, what prevents this scheme from getting weaponized, and how does it deal with wealth asymmetry?