[RepAgent]

Is there a reason why sentimental value should not be taxed?

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?

[harimau777]

A couple of thoughts:

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.

[lmm]

The tax burden is supposed to fall on those who are most able to bear it. Funding our society necessarily means inflicting a certain amount of misery on the citizens; the tax rates are supposed to share that misery out in a more-or-less equitable way.

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.

[justin66]

> The justifications for a high tax rate don't seem to apply to inheritance of items that have high sentimental value but low utility.

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)

[barrkel]

Because it gives wealthy people power to take things that poor people love.

[sukilot]

The solution for that is to tax wealthy people more.

[RepAgent]

As I said, there is no reason to extend tax to personal property. If poor people owns something valuable, they stop being poor when wealthy people take it.

The distinction between personal property or personal possessions and private property is important to make and the line must be drawn.

[chii]

> If poor people owns something valuable, they stop being poor when wealthy people take it.

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.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

You foeget eminent domain.

The stack is already against the homeowner who lacks lobbyists to fight back

This achieves more of a level playing field.

[yardstick]

“If poor people owns something valuable, they stop being poor when wealthy people take it”

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.

[seniorsassycat]

The amount they would have to value it at so they could afford the tax if they have to pay it may too low to turn them into a wealthy person if a wealthy person chooses to buy it.

[gerhardi]

Taxing sentimental value would be a perfect way to make the poor even poorer.. I don’t like the idea. Why would someone want to do this?

[RepAgent]

Did you understand the tax deduction part?

You can set the number so that if poor person must pay tax, he actually is moderately wealthy.

[gerhardi]

Yes and still, the idea of taxing sentimental value feels as absurd as tax on level of life satisfaction or something similar.

[C1sc0cat]

Your Granddads MOH or Victoria Cross for example