>...Considering urban areas isolate cases is somewhere in between funny and absurd. What you said was "That's why a house costs on average 24 times more today

>...Considering urban areas isolate cases is somewhere in between funny and absurd. What you said was "That's why a house costs on average 24 times more today than in 1960," You didn't say you were only taking about urban areas, and you have given no evidence that a house costs on average 24 times more today than 1960 when adjusted for inflation. You also haven't given any evidence that the increases in the house prices are due to the tax rates especially when there are more obvious factors. >...I have neither stated nor implied anything about tax burden. What you said was "It's a neo-feudal give away." >...What I want to do is incentivize a greater velocity of money, Increasing aggregate demand isn't some magic solution to every economic problem. Long term what makes a country wealthy is increased productivity. >...The very fact that insane rate existed was the incentive for most everyone else to do something with their money rather than nothing. The WW II rates of 90+ percent don't mean "...incentive for most everyone else to do something with their money rather than nothing". It actually means the opposite of what you mean. If the government will take any gains you make, you invest the money in bonds that won't be taxed. If, for example, you want to incentive people to invest in new businesses, you would look at lowering the tax rates for that investment - not increase them. As a rule, most economists are opposed to very high marginal tax rates due to the inefficiencies they introduce - compensation being moved to non-salary, money wasted on CPAs, lawyers and lobbying congress for special deductions, dead weight losses for economic activity that isn't done, etc.