The hottest policy idea floating around Capitol Hill right now is a complete repeal of capital gains tax on primary home sales, a plan that President Trump endorsed during his July campaign events.^1 Supporters argue this move would jumpstart a housing market that's been stuck in neutral, with annual sales hovering around 3.57 million units and inventory sitting at just 4.7 months of supply. According to the National Association of Realtors, this represents the weakest home turnover rate since the mid-1990s.^2

The problem is that most everyday homeowners never actually pay this tax anyway, which means the real beneficiaries would be households already sitting on massive amounts of home equity. When you dig into the numbers, the picture becomes pretty clear about who would actually benefit from this policy change.

Recent analysis from real estate data firm CoreLogic shows that nationwide, one in four homes has gained at least $250,000 in value since its last sale.^3 Even more striking, about 8 percent of all properties have added more than $500,000 in value over the same period. For those homes above the lower threshold, the median gain sits at $384,606, which would typically generate a tax bill of around $20,104 at the standard 15 percent capital gains rate.^4 A full repeal would eliminate that tax burden entirely, putting 100 percent of those savings directly into sellers' pockets.

What makes this particularly interesting is how unevenly distributed these benefits would be across the country. California presents the most dramatic example, where Zillow data indicates that 62 percent of properties now sit above the $250,000 gain threshold, and roughly one-third have appreciation exceeding $500,000.^5 Similar concentrations exist in markets around Manhattan, Seattle, and Boston, where long-term homeowners have watched their properties appreciate far beyond what most Americans experience.

This geographic concentration creates a potentially problematic dynamic. Remove the capital gains tax, and owners in these high-appreciation areas suddenly gain significant additional buying power for their next home purchase. That extra equity essentially becomes an inflation accelerant that typical buyers simply cannot match, particularly in competitive bidding situations.

Redfin's chief economist Daryl Fairweather has identified another potential ripple effect that sounds positive on the surface but may actually complicate things further.^6 She suggests that baby boomers who have been reluctant to sell and downsize might suddenly decide to list their homes if the tax penalty disappears. While this could unlock some badly needed inventory, the reality is that much of this newly released equity would likely stay within the same expensive coastal markets or flow toward second homes in low-tax states, continuing to apply upward pressure on prices where they're already steep.

For first-time buyers in middle America, this policy change would probably have minimal direct impact. Most of their potential sellers already fall under current capital gains exemptions, so there wouldn't be any meaningful increase in available inventory. However, they might face new competition from equity-rich buyers moving inland from coastal markets, potentially making their home search even more challenging.

The National Association of Realtors has been tracking this issue closely, with lobbyist Shannon McGahn warning that the current $250,000 and $500,000 thresholds are becoming outdated as home values rise.^7 Her research suggests that about 29 million homeowners could face capital gains exposure under current law, and that number could balloon to 70 million by 2035 if the thresholds aren't adjusted for inflation.^8 Interestingly, even McGahn stops short of endorsing a complete repeal, citing both the substantial loss of federal revenue and the political optics of what would essentially be a large tax break for wealthy homeowners.

Instead, policy experts are increasingly discussing indexed exclusions that would adjust the current thresholds for inflation over time. This approach might address the inventory bottleneck concerns without creating the dramatic market distortions that a full repeal could generate. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a complete capital gains repeal on primary residences would cost the federal government approximately $15 billion annually in lost revenue.^9

The Urban Institute has modeled various scenarios and found that while a full repeal might increase home sales volume by 8 to 12 percent in high-cost markets, it could also drive price increases of 3 to 5 percent in those same areas.^10 This creates a situation where the policy intended to make housing more accessible might actually push prices higher in markets where affordability is already a major concern.

For consumers trying to navigate this potential policy change, the implications depend heavily on where they sit in the market. If you own property in a high-appreciation area, keeping tabs on congressional developments makes sense, as a repeal could free up substantial equity and expand your potential buyer pool almost overnight. The timing could be particularly important for anyone considering a move in the next few years.

For those shopping with more modest budgets, the focus should probably be on practical preparation rather than policy speculation. This means getting financing lined up early, building in extra contingency funds, and potentially scouting neighborhoods that haven't yet attracted attention from equity-rich buyers moving from expensive coastal markets.

The Federal Reserve's recent analysis suggests that housing policy changes can take 12 to 18 months to fully work through the market system.^11 This means that even if legislation passes quickly, the full effects wouldn't be felt immediately, giving current market participants some time to adjust their strategies.

As with most major policy shifts, the ultimate winners will likely be those who understand the data and act strategically rather than simply reacting to headlines. The housing market has always rewarded preparation and timing, and a capital gains tax repeal would probably amplify those advantages rather than change the fundamental dynamics of who succeeds in real estate transactions.

References: