[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)