David Invest

Huge Housing Tax Shakeup Coming—Will You Benefit?

• David (Viacheslav) Davidenko

Share episode

The feeling is unmistakable for millions of homeowners across America—being trapped in a property that no longer meets your needs because moving seems financially impossible. Today's perfect storm of record-high home prices combined with elevated mortgage rates has created what economists call the "lock-in effect," leaving countless families feeling financially handcuffed to homes they've outgrown or would otherwise sell.

But a seismic shift might be on the horizon. President Trump has signaled support for completely eliminating the capital gains tax on primary residence sales—a policy change that could dramatically alter the calculus for homeowners considering a move. The current exclusions ($250,000 for singles, $500,000 for married couples) haven't budged since 1997, despite median home prices surging 223% from $126,000 then to over $427,000 today. This disconnect has pushed many long-term homeowners, particularly retirees looking to downsize, into unexpected tax situations they never anticipated when purchasing decades ago.

Who stands to gain most from such a change? The data paints a clear picture: primarily wealthy, long-term homeowners in high-cost regions. Research shows the typical beneficiary would be around 65 years old with a $5.7 million net worth and a $1.4 million home. Nearly 40% of California properties have appreciated beyond the married exemption limit, leading analysts to characterize this as "largely a California story," with similar patterns in other expensive markets like New York, Florida, and Massachusetts. While proponents argue eliminating this tax could unlock housing inventory by encouraging older Americans to sell larger homes without tax penalties, critics counter that it fails to address the fundamental issues freezing the market—persistently high mortgage rates and the critical shortage of affordable housing construction. Some economists even warn that cash-rich downsizers could drive up prices in the starter home segment by competing directly with first-time buyers. As you consider your own housing situation, the question becomes: would this policy help unlock the market for everyone, or primarily benefit those already holding substantial wealth?

🔗 Check out our website for more information and valuable resources: https://linkin.bio/davidinvest

📸 Follow us on Instagram for updates and behind-the-scenes content: https://www.instagram.com/davidinvestai/

🔗 Network with me on LinkedIn for professional connections and advice: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vdavidenko/

📧 Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive investment tips and insights: https://sunrisecapitalgroup.com/subscribe/

📚 Check out my course on Udemy - https://www.udemy.com/course/passive-real-estate-investing/

Disclaimer: The content provided on this channel is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, financial, or tax advice. We strongly recommend that you consult with qualified professionals before making any financial decisions. Past performance of investments is not indicative of future results. The information presented here is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or investments. Our firm may have conflicts of interest, and we do not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of the content provided. Investing involves risks, and you should carefully consid...

Speaker 1:

If you're a homeowner you've probably felt it right, that feeling of being kind of locked in by today's housing market. People are calling it sluggish, frozen, I've even heard unaffordable.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, definitely.

Speaker 1:

You feel caught, you know, between these sky high home prices and then mortgage rates that make moving seem like well climbing a financial Everest. It's a huge hurdle moving seem like well climbing a financial Everest. It's a huge hurdle, so for a lot of people staying put, even if maybe the house doesn't really fit their needs anymore it just feels like the only realistic option.

Speaker 2:

It's a very real thing, this lock-in effect. It's impacting millions, millions of households all across the country, Right? But you know, there's actually a major discussion happening now in Washington that could dramatically change things.

Speaker 1:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

Especially for people who own their homes for a long time. Okay, you could be on the edge of a potentially well seismic shift.

Speaker 1:

Absolutely, and that shift comes from President Trump recently signaling he's looking at a proposal to completely get rid of the capital gains tax when you sell your main home.

Speaker 2:

That's the one.

Speaker 1:

So our mission today on this deep dive is really to unpack what that actually means. Why is it such a big deal? And, maybe the most important question, who really benefits from this?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, who wins and who maybe doesn't. Exactly.

Speaker 1:

So we're asking you, listening right now have you felt that lock-in effect or maybe someone you know has and how might a change like this, you know, potentially impact your own financial freedom or even just your decision about whether to move house? Let's dive in.

Speaker 2:

Okay. So to really get into the implications, we probably need to quickly just recap the current rules. How things work now.

Speaker 1:

Good idea.

Speaker 2:

So, as a lot of you probably know, when you sell an asset, like, say, your home, for a profit, that profit is usually subject to what's called a capital gains tax.

Speaker 1:

Right the tax on your earnings.

Speaker 2:

Exactly, but for your primary residence, your main home, there are actually some pretty big exclusions already in place. Okay, currently, if you're single, the exclusion is $250,000 dollars a profit. That's tax free. And for married couples for married couples filing jointly, it's double that Five hundred thousand dollars. Anything you make above those amounts, that's what gets taxed.

Speaker 1:

OK, that seems pretty straightforward, but what's really striking and you touched on this is how old this rule is. Yeah, it was passed way back in 1997. Yeah, it was passed way back in 1997.

Speaker 2:

1997. Think about that.

Speaker 1:

And if you just look at the median home prices, then versus today I mean back then it was around what? $126,000?

Speaker 2:

About that yeah no-transcript.

Speaker 1:

It's over $427,000.

Speaker 2:

Way over.

Speaker 1:

That's a staggering jump, like 223 percent Right.

Speaker 2:

That's the number a 223 percent increase.

Speaker 1:

Yet those tax exclusion limits the $250K and $500, they haven't moved an inch.

Speaker 2:

Haven't budged. Stayed exactly the same since 97.

Speaker 1:

So how has that disconnect, that history actually played out for homeowners In the real world? What's the impact?

Speaker 2:

Well, it's kind of incredible when you think about it, isn't it, that a law from you know just over 25 years ago could now be hitting someone who's maybe trying to downsize after 30 years in their family home just because of, well, inflation and how much the market's gone up. This law, which was designed for the, you know, late 90s housing market, it's now actively penalizing a growing number of homeowners. We're talking about people who've owned for a long time, maybe retirees looking to downsize or families who need more space. Now their profits especially if they live in, say, moderately expensive areas or definitely high cost areas, those profits can easily shoot past that $500,000 mark now.

Speaker 1:

Pushing them into a tax situation they never expected.

Speaker 2:

Exactly A taxable bracket they probably never even considered when they bought the place decades ago.

Speaker 1:

So OK, given those outdated limits, what are the actual policy ideas being floated now to fix this? You mentioned the big one total elimination, like in the no Tax on Home Sales Act. From Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, that's the sort of the most extreme version total elimination.

Speaker 1:

But even people who maybe aren't keen on getting rid of it completely, they seem to agree something needs to change.

Speaker 2:

Right.

Speaker 1:

What are the other ideas out there? What do they tell us?

Speaker 2:

That's a really important point. Even critics of just wiping it out completely, they recognize there's an issue here. Okay, I mean, if you just took those original 1997 limits the $250K and $500K and simply adjusted them for inflation since then?

Speaker 1:

What would they be now?

Speaker 2:

Well, the single filer limit would be around $506,000. And for married couples it would jump to about $1.13 million. Wow.

Speaker 1:

Over a million dollars yeah.

Speaker 2:

So that comparison alone really highlights how inadequate the current caps are. They're just not really fit for purpose in today's market.

Speaker 1:

It definitely suggests there's a clear feeling, maybe even a consensus, that some kind of adjustment is really overdue, even if people disagree on how much adjustment.

Speaker 2:

Precisely the debate isn't so much if there's a problem, but more about what the right solution is.

Speaker 1:

Which brings up a really fascinating question who exactly are they? Let's call them the big winners. If this tax just disappeared, because, like you said, the benefits wouldn't be spread evenly at all, would they? Who really stands to gain the most from such a huge policy change?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, if we connect this back to the data, it's largely a story about two main groups homeowners in those really high cost areas and people who've built up substantial equity over many, many decades. There was an analysis done for MarketWatch by realtorcom and they basically called this largely a California story.

Speaker 1:

California. Okay, why specifically?

Speaker 2:

Well, get this. Nearly 40 percent of homes in California have appreciated by more than that five hundred thousand dollar married couple limit since they were last sold. Forty percent, that's huge, it's massive. And other states that would see you know significant benefits follow that pattern Florida, new York, washington State, massachusetts places with high property values.

Speaker 1:

So it's geographically concentrated then.

Speaker 2:

Very much so. And another stat that kind of underscores this in California nearly 30 percent of recent home sales actually triggered capital gains taxes 30 percent paid the tax. Yeah, which just hammers home how inadequate those federal limits are in certain markets. They just don't reflect the reality on the ground there.

Speaker 1:

And you mentioned research from Yale's budget lab about the typical beneficiary. That profile was really eye-opening, wasn't it? It's maybe not who you'd first picture struggling with a tax bill.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. It paints a pretty specific picture. We're talking about someone who's typically around, say, 65 years old.

Speaker 1:

Okay, ret retirement age.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and their average net worth around $5.7 million.

Speaker 1:

Wow Okay.

Speaker 2:

And the home itself is typically valued at about $1.4 million.

Speaker 1:

So we're not talking about first-time buyers or people just getting by.

Speaker 2:

Not typically no. This research really clarifies who this specific policy change, total elimination, seems primarily designed to help, and for this particular group, getting rid of that capital gains tax could mean, you know, saving tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes.

Speaker 1:

Which could give them that financial freedom, that push they might need to finally decide to sell.

Speaker 2:

That's the idea. It's about potentially empowering a segment of the population that's holding quite a bit of wealth tied up in their homes.

Speaker 1:

So OK, let's talk about that central argument. Then the idea that getting rid of this tax would unlock the market. Is that the big promise here? Could this genuinely fix our frozen housing supply problem?

Speaker 2:

Well, that's certainly the theory that the proponents put forward. That's the main pitch, right? The idea is that if you remove this tax burden, it would encourage older Americans, especially those in that profile we just discussed, to finally sell their larger homes Without, you know, that potentially massive tax bill hanging over their heads. The thinking is that more homes would hit the market and that you know that potentially massive tax bill hanging over their heads. The thinking is that more homes would hit the market and that, in turn, would help ease the supply shortage we're all feeling.

Speaker 1:

But hang on a second. If we've just established it primarily benefits wealthier long-term homeowners, aren't critics immediately going to jump on that and say wait, this is just a tax break for the rich.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely. That's the immediate counterargument.

Speaker 1:

And that it won't really touch the core issues for, say, renters or first-time buyers trying to get into the market.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. The reality is likely much more complicated than that simple unlocking inventory story suggests. Critics are, you know, very quick to point out that this policy looks primarily like a significant tax break benefiting wealthier homeowners who've been there a long time, right Renters who make up what over a third of US households.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, huge group.

Speaker 2:

They wouldn't see any direct benefit.

Speaker 1:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

Neither would most first-time buyers trying to scrape together a down payment.

Speaker 1:

And isn't there also a potential kind of unintended consequence that people worry about something that could actually make affordability worse for some?

Speaker 2:

Yes, that's a big concern.

Speaker 1:

Like imagine you have this wave of cash, rich downsizers right. They've just sold their multi-million dollar homes tax free. What if they then turn around and enter the market looking for smaller, maybe more affordable, starter homes?

Speaker 2:

Competing directly with first-time buyers.

Speaker 1:

Exactly. Couldn't that actually drive prices up in that segment of the market, the part that's already super competitive?

Speaker 2:

That's a definite risk that economists point to you can inadvertently fuel demand and therefore prices at the lower end of the market.

Speaker 1:

It almost feels, I don't know counterintuitive, if the main goal is supposed to be improving overall affordability, doesn't it?

Speaker 2:

It does seem a bit sideways to that goal because fundamentally the biggest things driving that overall lock-in effect that we started with they remain the high mortgage rates.

Speaker 1:

Still the elegant in the room.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely, and just a sheer lack of affordable housing options across the board, especially new homes being built.

Speaker 1:

Right.

Speaker 2:

So, while getting rid of the capital gains tax might possibly help the margins by encouraging some supply to come online, it's not a silver bullet. It doesn't seem like it addresses those core, fundamental issues that are really freezing the broader market. For most people it feels like a solution, tackling maybe one piece of a much larger, much more complex puzzle.

Speaker 1:

So where does this leave us? What's next for this whole proposal? I mean, the discussion seems to be just getting started, yeah it's early days in terms of actual policy. And any real change would obviously need an act of Congress. It's not something that can happen overnight.

Speaker 2:

No, absolutely not. It requires legislation.

Speaker 1:

But I guess the fact that this is even being seriously talked about, you know, at the highest levels, that seems significant in itself. It suggests there's a growing recognition that the current system, the 1997 rules, well, they're kind of broken.

Speaker 2:

I think that's fair to say, whether the eventual fix is total elimination of the tax or maybe just that long overdue adjustment of the limits for inflation we talked about.

Speaker 1:

Right Indexing them somehow.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, indexing them. Either way, it feels clear that the tax rules around selling your home just aren't really fit for purpose anymore in today's housing market. This is definitely a debate that could end up reshaping personal finance decisions, and certainly real estate choices, for potentially years to come.

Speaker 1:

So, as we wrap up this deep dive, maybe here's a final thought for everyone listening to Mull over OK, if a central goal for policymakers is genuinely improving housing affordability and boosting supply for everyone, does focusing so much energy on the capital gains tax for primary residences actually address the right problem?

Speaker 2:

That's the key question.

Speaker 1:

Or, you know, does it risk maybe making other issues worse, potentially creating new hurdles for people just trying to get a foothold in the market, like those first time buyers? It's definitely something to think about, isn't it? Especially when you consider the sort of broader economic ripple effects that a really significant tax policy change like this could have.

People on this episode

Head Shot

David (Viacheslav) Davidenko

Host