That's a circular explanation, but maybe I'm reading it that way because we aren't aligned on what 'consumption' means. For a durable good like a house or a couch I think it would be something like expected service life / interval * over-or-underuse multiplier.

The interval technique makes sense to me on goods that are used over time or taxed over time. You can pay for a house all at once, and if you were only paying property tax once I think I would agree with you that the tax is consumption tax. Yet property taxes are annual, so in order for property tax to be a consumption tax we would have to enumerate how much consumption is occurring during that year.

Consider something simpler, like a sofa. We both buy the same sofa with a service life of 10 years. Did we consume the sofa when we bought it? Or do we consume it over its useful life? If I jump on the sofa daily and it lasts for 1 year, I've consumed it in a year. If you barely sit on it and it lasts you 20 years, you've consumed it over 20 years.

Does that make sense? How are you defining consumption?

I believe that in most jurisdictions, the "guts" of property tax millage formulas is based on a 10-year interval (or maybe more accurately, 1/10 of the assessed value). However, that's always seemed arbitrary to me, as: 1) it's never "paid-off" and 2) millage rates are set in conjunction with this known value.

So while it may not be a satisfying answer, in my experience, self-circular is just sort of the way it is.

Also, the consumed / depreciated value comparison doesn't sit right with me, since for business expenses (tax write-off purposes), it's based on zero value at end of life. Any previously depreciated value recovered at sale has to be (re)taxed; you only get to ultimately deduct true depreciated value, albeit (re-)payment is delayed to year of sale.

Regardless, real property (non-movable) is rarely disposed of for zero value, so "depreciated" value isn't a good estimate for "consumed " value.