Your argument against a non-existent $150,000 yearly tax is that a single person would need to pay that if they owned a property two thirds the size of the Vatican, on the ocean, 45 minutes from the biggest city centre in a 2000km radius.
No wait, that wasn't the argument here, your argument is that they wouldn't want to accumulate even more wealth.
> Not have the incentive to stop once you have gotten a $20m home
Minor point, that's not a home, that's two homes in the same listing. I'd argue that accumulating property wealth beyond a house seems like it ought to be disincentivized at least a little bit, but evidently you're under the impression that either poor people don't deserve the opportunity or that land is in infinite supply.
