I mean, you would not extend the taxation to personal holdings with little value or moderate value (automatic tax deduction of $2,000 per person from COST would probably be enough) but if someone wants to keep something very valuable for sentimental reasons, why the feeling should not have a value put on it?
The question can easily be turned around: why should sentimental value be taxed?
It seems to me that protecting the things that are important to someone is a core purpose of society. Forcing someone to choose between the security of the things that are important to them and their financial wellbeing would undermine that.
The justifications for a high tax rate don't seem to apply to inheritance of items that have high sentimental value but low utility. Since the property does not have great utility, taxing it does not moderate income inequality due to inheriting capital. Both the idea of a higher tax rate on people who have more and the idea that it is justified to tax things higher that people didn't earn seem like an odd match for property that is high in sentimental value.
Someone who has a lot of valuable things is better off than someone who doesn't, and so we demand a greater share of tax from them. It seems to me that that logic goes through exactly the same whether that value is nominal or sentimental.
There's nothing accurate about saying an expensive work of art has "low utility."
(and as I pointed out in a separate comment, an inexpensive work of art won't be taxed heavily so the whole point is moot)
The distinction between personal property or personal possessions and private property is important to make and the line must be drawn.
Only if you accept the money given makes up for the loss. Money does not make someone rich. It may put bread on the table but that poor person is still poor because they lost what was important to them.
Also the rich don’t get rich by paying more than they have to, which may not be what the property is worth to the original owner.
if you owned some land which could've been mined/fracked upon, then it might make economic sense for said company to purchase your land. You'd have to either pay an above average tax rate to justify holding on to the land, or be forced to sell it.
On the one hand, it does make economic utilitarian sense. On the other hand, it prevents people from being able to control their own property. Esp. if they have no funds to fight or defend themselves.
The stack is already against the homeowner who lacks lobbyists to fight back
This achieves more of a level playing field.
You can set the number so that if poor person must pay tax, he actually is moderately wealthy.