This goes against the philosophy of Bitcoin. Forfeiture of assets shouldn't be an option even if it has never been touched or stayed dormant for the past century. There is also a problem with an arbitrary threshold where there isn't a good way to determine how long the coin should stay dormant before being recirculated. This would pose far too much of an issue in terms of both implementation and motivation. Even if you start to recycle OP_Return outputs, the purpose of sending them by the original owner would be defeated.
Between this and implementing a tail emission of sorts, I'd support tail emission. There shouldn't be a scenario where an asset gets confiscated because it lays dormant.
I agree, this goes against the philosophy of Bitcoin but the philosophy of Bitcoin can't remain the same because over time, everything changes. The mentality of people, the working environments, relationships, the attitude towards something and so on. As time goes, everything evolves, even the constitution changes, so Bitcoin can't stay exactly the same.
Tail Emission will make Bitcoin inflationary. I think that the ideal scenario for Bitcoin will be that it will become a popular payment method, millions of transactions will be made on bitcoin blockchain and we will significantly increase the block size (it can be dynamic too). If there will be millions of transactions in one block, Bitcoin miners will be able to get a very good reward while the transaction fees will not be ridiculously high. Problem solved, everyone will be happy.