Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dave says

(5,255 posts)
25. What's not true?
Sat Aug 2, 2025, 11:41 AM
Aug 2

In your example there is a capital gain of $300,000.

Before Trump's EO, this is what would be paid on a $550k home in federal capital gains tax:

> Married filing jointly: $0 (the $300k gain is under the $500k exemption)
> Single: $10,000, for an effective tax rate of 3.3% (20% on the $50k above the $250k exemption)

After Trump's EO, both pay zero.

If the sales price was 100x the median, or $41m, and the original price paid was $1m, the gain of $40m would exceed $500k by $39.5m and the tax would be $7.9m (doing married, filing jointly -- you can do the math for single filers). Mr. and Mrs. Big Bucks come out quite well, unlike those below, at, or maybe only a few multiples of the median. Trump's EO greatly benefits those at the top.

The EO, just like everything else about Trump, is regressive. It helps the Already-Haves while not greatly nor directly impacting the majority of us. I suppose IF the taxes continued unchanged, the tax collected could be put to use on things of wider social benefit, but apparently that's not what America wants.

Meanwhile they're still taxing social security benefits. And no help for those with student loans. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting shut there doors yesterday. How many rural hospitals are closing? Capital gain taxes on RE sales could be put to some better use other than padding the bank accounts of the wealthy and the very well off.

See my post #19 for more on my thinking about this.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Oh great, as if he wasn't already causing a recession Metaphorical Jul 31 #1
You seem to be misreading the proposal Ms. Toad Jul 31 #2
Thanks for this, MT. The detail of having to live in a house for two years... brush Aug 2 #26
Making it more lucrative for long time homeowners to sell would benefit anyone wanting to buy DBoon Jul 31 #3
I agree Dave says Aug 1 #10
you're assuming a couple. mopinko Aug 1 #14
Most people don't have much Dave says Aug 1 #16
for most ppl, their homes r their biggest investment. mopinko Aug 1 #18
Median house value is $410.8k Dave says Aug 2 #19
that's how it used to b. mopinko Jul 31 #4
Capital gains tops out at 20%, not 39% tinrobot Aug 1 #7
ty. i forgot about that. mopinko Aug 1 #11
The heirs wouldn't pay on capital gains Dave says Aug 2 #20
I support. We need turnover on the housing market Melon Aug 1 #5
It only matters if the gain exceeds $500/250k Dave says Aug 2 #21
That's not true. Any $250k house in in 2016 Melon Aug 2 #24
What's not true? Dave says Aug 2 #25
The lack of affordable housing has continued to moniss Aug 1 #6
Basically, this would give big tax breaks to rich people tinrobot Aug 1 #8
a cap is fine, but housing prices in a lot of places r well above that. mopinko Aug 1 #12
I agree, the limits were set in the Clinton era and never adjusted tinrobot Aug 1 #15
They weren't indexed but they were adjusted Dave says Aug 2 #22
I'm in a profession acutely aware of what would happen if this were to be implemented. W_HAMILTON Aug 1 #9
you're assuming they cd use it over and over. mopinko Aug 1 #13
Not correct Dave says Aug 2 #23
Can we please get these fucking idiots out of our government now? Initech Aug 1 #17
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump wants to 'unleash' ...»Reply #25