> No you couldn't. You can't be forced to sell at all unless you are unwilling to pay land value tax on the offered value.
So, under your proposal, you would have to value your property at the sentimental value it has for you, which for some things is infinite.
My theoretical dad's VW would have to be "valued" at $1500, and if I think someone with a grudge against me is willing to pay that, I'd have to progressively increase the tax I pay on it just to keep it?
This is a very bad idea; in fact, I cannot think of a single state that ever experimented with such an idea. If no state, even failed states, thinks it's a good idea I don't see what refinement you could make that turns it from a bad idea into a good idea.
This is a game theoretical idea that shows how to address under- and overvaluation of property. How to refine it into a practical system is an open question but I'm sorry, I just don't see how your example of inheritance of a Beetle scuppers the whole thing.
Property taxation being used to unfairly seize objects of mere sentimental value seems an easy to problem resolve compared to the problem of imposing property taxation at all. The real reason land value tax hasn't seen much use in any jurisdiction is that it massively advantages the common person above the wealthy landowner, so there are huge structural pressures against it.
So, under your proposal, you would have to value your property at the sentimental value it has for you, which for some things is infinite.
My theoretical dad's VW would have to be "valued" at $1500, and if I think someone with a grudge against me is willing to pay that, I'd have to progressively increase the tax I pay on it just to keep it?
This is a very bad idea; in fact, I cannot think of a single state that ever experimented with such an idea. If no state, even failed states, thinks it's a good idea I don't see what refinement you could make that turns it from a bad idea into a good idea.