Trump says he is ‘thinking about' nixing capital gains tax on home sales. Here's what that could mean for homeowners
In comments to the press on Tuesday, President Donald Trump suggested he is considering eliminating capital gains taxes on the sale of homes.
'We are thinking about … no tax on capital gains on houses,' Trump said.
Soon afterwards, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia posted her thanks to him on X for what she interpreted to be his support for a bill she introduced this month, calling for the elimination of the capital gains tax when someone sells their primary residence.
Will anything come of it? Who knows.
Especially since Trump just signed into law a mega tax-and-spending cuts bill that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will increase deficits on net by $3.4 trillion over a decade while at the same time knocking 10 million more people off health insurance.
But should it become an idea that Congress pursues seriously, it's worth reviewing just how the capital gains tax on home sales works currently and who might benefit most if it were killed.
If you sell a primary residence on which you realize a big capital gain — meaning you sell it for more than you bought it even after accounting for closing fees and qualified home improvement costs along the way — you may owe a capital gains tax on at least some of that gain.
Or not. It depends.
If you sell your house within a year of buying it, any capital gains will be considered short-term and you will have to pay ordinary income tax on all your gains.
But if you have lived in it as your primary residence for at least 24 months (consecutively or not) in the previous five years before you sell it, you may be allowed to exempt from the capital gains tax the first $250,000 of your gains if you're single or $500,000 if you're married filing jointly
Any gains above those thresholds are subject to the long-term capital gains tax. But just how much you'll pay is based on your income, broken out below.
You also may get a break on the capital gains tax if you don't meet the eligibility tests but had to sell your home 'due to a change in employment, health, or unforeseen circumstances,' according to the IRS.
(Note, too, that the capital gains tax rules work somewhat differently when you sell a second home or rental property.)
In 2025, filers will owe 0% in capital gains tax for gains above the exemption threshold if their taxable income is below $48,350 (or $96,700 if married filing jointly), according to the IRS.
They will owe 15% if their income is between $48,450 and $533,400 (or between $96,700 and $600,050 for joint filers).
And any filer with income above those levels will pay a 20% capital gains rate.
In all instances, however, the long-term capital gains tax rate is often below the top ordinary income tax rate a filer faces.
Since the $250,000 and $500,000 capital gains exemption thresholds have not adjusted for inflation since they were set in 1997, a growing number of homeowners, especially long-time ones, may realize taxable gains even if they don't live in the highest-priced areas by today's standards.
Generally speaking, three categories of home sellers are the ones most likely to have to pay the capital gains tax if they make out well selling their home: 1) Anyone living in an area where homes have appreciated greatly in recent years, especially in neighborhoods where home prices are typically well above the national average; 2) anyone who has lived in their home for decades during which time nominal home prices have shot up; or 3) anyone with high income and sufficient wealth to buy a very expensive home wherever they live.
A recent study by the National Association of Realtors, which has advocated for doubling the exemption caps and adjusting them as if they'd been indexed to inflation since 1997, estimates that 29 million homeowners — about one-third — may already have enough equity in their home to exceed the $250,000 cap, while 8 million — or about one-tenth — may have enough to top the $500,000 threshold.
Looking ahead, it forecasts that by 2035, close to 70% of homeowners might have gains exceeding $250,000 and 38% of them will have more than $500,000.
'In states with exceptionally high-priced markets, such as California, Massachusetts and Colorado, the trend is even more pronounced,' the report said.
Broadly speaking, NAR contends, the current caps may be disincentivizing homeowners to sell. 'Over the past 28 years, home price inflation has eroded the value of these exemptions, especially for older homeowners who have lived in their home for 20 years or more. At a time when many of these homeowners are considering downsizing or moving to a retirement facility, more and more are facing gains well in excess of the exclusions, which can leave them owing many thousands of dollars in taxes and reduce their ability to afford a new home.'
In another analysis, the Yale Budget Lab, using the Federal Reserve's 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances, noted that the minority of homeowners who might currently benefit if the capital gains tax were eliminated are largely wealthier, higher-income, and older on average.
'In 2022, homeowners with gains above the exemption had an average net worth of $5.7 million. For homeowners below the exemption, this number was just over $1 million,' the researchers wrote.
See Full Web Article
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ty J. Young Wealth Management Launches "The Official Guide to Selling Your Annuity Business" to Support Growing Acquisition Strategy
ATLANTA, Aug. 4, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Ty J. Young Wealth Management, a leading wealth management firm, today announced the release of its new ebook, "The Official Guide to Selling Your Annuity Business" This comprehensive guide is designed to provide financial advisory firms with essential insights for successfully navigating the sale of their business. As a rapidly growing wealth management practice, Ty J. Young Wealth Management has successfully acquired 41 businesses as its footprint has expanded across the United States. The new book leverages that extensive experience, offering a detailed roadmap for owners considering their exit strategy. "As a leading wealth management firm, we are continuously seeking opportunities to expand who we can serve," said Ty J. Young, CEO of Ty J. Young Wealth Management. "We developed 'The Official Guide to Selling Your Annuity Business' not only as a resource for the industry but also as a direct reflection of our commitment to actively acquiring more advisory companies. Our goal is to empower business owners with the knowledge they need, whether they choose to partner with us or pursue other paths." "The Official Guide to Selling Your Annuity Business" is available for immediate download at About Ty J. Young Wealth Management Ty J. Young Wealth Management, established in 1998, is a leading independent wealth management firm committed to providing comprehensive financial solutions. With over $1 billion in assets under management and serving clients nationwide, the firm is renowned for its expertise in investment management, retirement planning, and insurance. Ty Young and the firm's strategists are frequently sought after for their insights, appearing in prominent media outlets such as CNBC, Forbes, and Fox Business. Discover how Ty J. Young Wealth Management can help you achieve your financial goals at: View original content: SOURCE Ty J. Young Wealth Management
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AMD & Pfizer earnings, ISM services data: What to Watch
Market Domination Overtime host Josh Lipton takes a look at the top stories for investors to watch on Tuesday, Aug. 5. In the morning, Caterpillar (CAT) and Pfizer (PFE) will announce earnings results. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Amgen (AMGN), Snap (SNAP), and Rivian (RIVN) will announce results in the afternoon. In the morning, Institute for Supply Management (ISM) services data for July will be released. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime. Time now for what to watch Tuesday, August 5th. Gonna start off on the earnings front. Big names reporting on Tuesday, including Pfizer and AMD. Pfizer announced results for the second quarter in the morning. Pharmaceutical company's drug pipeline in focus for investors with some key patents expiring in the coming years. Pfizer trying to offset that loss with a $7.2 billion cost cutting plan. The company says it has a pipeline of new drugs coming, but data on how effective those will be remains to be seen. And moving over to AMD, the semiconductor company reporting second quarter earnings after the market's closed on Tuesday, and was expecting the company to post strong results for Q2, driven by its ramp up of AI chips, which could significantly boost revenue, especially if export restrictions to China ease. And taking a look at the economy, monthly ISM services data for July coming out on Tuesday. Cons forecasting that number rise to 51.5, signaling that the service sector is growing and there's steady demand from consumers and businesses.
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How reliable is the jobs data? Economists and Wall Street still trust it
WASHINGTON (AP) — The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were 'RIGGED' to make him and other Republicans 'look bad.' Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large — the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. 'The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable,' Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. 'We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. 'Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market.' Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says 'it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid.' The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers — when they are good. These are the figures is Trump attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory," yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations — including multiple locations for the same business — covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest — outside recessions — since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday and said, 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers.' Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: 'When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed.' Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. 'We are at an inflection point,' the report said. 'To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future. Christopher Rugaber, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data