[magicalhippo]

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?

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

If you value it at or above market rates, then, by definition, whoever bought it from you would pay you enough money to buy another at market rate.

[magicalhippo]

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?