You actually want it more complicated than that, maybe something like for every dollar of affordability you sell (under $X), you earn the right to sell $0.10 worth of luxury.
In the context of cars, arguably nothing.
In the original context of real estate, all kinds of things, because having somewhere to live is essential to quality of life and reserving more of the finite real estate available for development for a few luxury homes means a lot more regular homes that could house a lot more families can't be built there instead.
In a world (kind of like the one we live in right now...) where Toyota only had components to build 500k cars a year then they'll make 300k luxury cars and 200k regular cars and buying cheap low end cars becomes almost impossible.
If the market equilibrium in an unrestricted market is 2mil:300k, or roughly 6:1, regular to luxury cars then an argument could be made that regulations should be but in place to retain that market equilibrium even during a restricted market, assuming we believe it is important that everyone can own a car.
If you prohibit most profit you prohibit most progress.
A few will, but most won’t. The amount of risk to develop and the type of skills required are non trivial.
The reality is that if all those things were provided population would grow unchecked until resources ran out. It’s not sustainable.
On the other extreme, we can do a lot better than artificial scarcity.