[dragonwriter]

> It seems that many people think that COST type private property tax would extend to personal property

You just literally recommended it for an item of tangible personal property, so from your recommendation that's not an extension at all.

> Personal possessions are not taxed in any place of the world

Yes, ad valorem property taxes on items of personal property do exist in some jurisdictions in the world, including many in the United States. (E.g., California's Vehicle License Fee is an ad valorem tax on automobiles which are items of tangible personal property.)

> and tax deduction make sure that small personal properties can be owned without paying tax.

That doesn't make sense with the preceding claim: of personal property wasn't taxed, you wouldn't need any kind of deduction to allow owning it without paying tax. Also, deductions which allow this aren't in place where they would be needed (i.e., where certain items of personal property are taxed) to allow ownership without taxation.

[RepAgent]

>You just literally recommended it for an item of tangible personal property,

Yes. We all write somewhat inaccurately and carelessly in discussion groups. Instead of nitpicking each other, we should try to read each other favorably.

What I mean is that there is classes of tangibles from pots and pans that one commentators was worried about into paintings worth of millions. It's concealable that at some valuations artifacts worth of millions are considered different asset classes.

[dragonwriter]

It seems to me that if you want to recommend this to be applied to some particular subset of tangible real property rather than the whole class, than rather than mocking the idea that your recommendation would extend to the existing category as a whole, you ought to actually define the subset to which you would propose applying it so that your actual proposal can be evaluated.