The problem with that (and all other forms of eminent domain) is that the value of a piece of property to the owner is often far higher than its value on the open market. Even if this is purely a business decision and not, say, related to an irreplaceable family heirloom, the risk of a forced sale at an inconvenient time would be far too disruptive.

For example, let's say you own a car with an appraised value of $25,000—meaning that you could buy one similar to your for that price (more or less). So you declare the taxable value to be $25,000 and pay the corresponding tax, and then right before you leave for an extended road trip someone decides that they would rather have your vehicle than one from a dealer and makes you an offer for $25,000 which you cannot legally refuse. Now you're without a car and scrambling to buy a replacement and get it registered, insured, packed, and ready to leave on short notice. Your plans are disrupted and the new vehicle, while "equivalent" to the one you had before in terms of factory specs and general condition, just isn't the same as the one you had carefully maintained and customized to your liking.

In practice people would need to over-declare the value of any property they didn't want to sell, which effectively makes this a tax on how attached people are to specific items and not a tax on their "fair" market value. The situation becomes even worse if the owner has enemies willing to over-pay for the item purely out of spite.

One of the fundamental rights of ownership is the right to choose not to sell, no matter how much someone offers.

Pretty trivial to declare your car at $26,000. The extra tax is minimal, and if someone buys it, the $1000 bonus will cushion your annoyance.

If we think that "everyone" will have to "overdeclare" in such fashion, then obviously the government is collecting more revenue than it intended and will lower the tax rates to compensate, so in the end, you'll pay the same dollar amount in tax on your $26,000 car as you would have on your $25,000 car.

So, such a system would work fine. Particularly for property taxes, which are currently the subject of much scamming (apartment buildings in NYC being valued at a few percent of their actual market value, for example).

> If we think that "everyone" will have to "overdeclare" in such fashion, then obviously the government is collecting more revenue than it intended and will lower the tax rates to compensate, …

If everyone over-declares by the same amount, sure. But not everyone will. It depends on how much attachment one has to a specific item, how much risk there is that someone will attempt to take it, and how painful or inconvenient it would be to lose it. And you're ignoring the point about being vulnerable to motivated individuals willing to pay above-market rates purely to cause trouble.

Pretty obvious that insurance companies would make a killing here, providing "asset retention" riders.

You get to declare a reasonable value, and if someone wants to buy, but you're not willing to sell at that time, the insurance company negotiates a substitute payment, and works that cost into your retention rider rate going forward.

This is outrageously favorable to the uber-wealthy (and anyone who is an order of magnitude more wealthy than you.)

Piss someone off? Maybe they'll just come in and buy your house. Cherished one of a kind item? Jeff Bezos likes it, so it's his now. Property developer wants to build something on your land? Get ready to move, no questions asked.

>>Cherished one of a kind item? Can you give an example of an item with a large resale value that is cherished? Most sentimental valuable items tend to be of lower value. The ones I can think of, e.g. Wedding rings etc..... well if this would drive people to spend less on diamond rings or useless trinkets that generate a lot of pollution because it's the sentimental value that matters, that would be a win.

Any item must be purchased at a +30% premium over the recorded value with that extra 30% going to the state if a sale occurs. So if you did want to hold onto something, you would declare a higher value and get paid extra.

You would declare a higher valuation and get taxed extra... all while still not preventing Jeff Bezos or anyone with sufficient wealth from swooping in and buying it.