Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 121 to raise the capital gain exclusion on the sale of a principal residence. It doubles the current exclusion amounts from $250,000/$500,000 to $500,000/$1,000,000, adds annual inflation adjustments beginning after 2024, and rounds increases to the next lowest $100.
Liberals emphasize regressivity and want income limits or offsets
Technically simple and popular with homeowners, but revenue cost and distributional critiques create opposition.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 121 to raise the capital gain exclusion on the sale of a principal residence.
It doubles the current exclusion amounts from $250,000/$500,000 to $500,000/$1,000,000, adds annual inflation adjustments beginning after 2024, and rounds increases to the next lowest $100.
The changes apply to sales and exchanges after enactment.
Simple, popular narrow tax change but large unoffset revenue cost and lack of compromise features reduce standalone odds; more likely as part of a larger package.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberals emphasize regressivity and want income limits or offsets
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize regressivity and want income limits or offsets
Likely mixed to skeptical.
Supportive of measures that increase housing turnover and mobility, but concerned the tax cut mainly benefits higher-income homeowners.
Would want targeting, offsets, or protections for renters and low-income households.
Pragmatic and cautiously favorable if fiscal impacts are addressed.
Sees potential to improve mobility and housing supply but wants evidence of net benefit and budget neutrality.
Prefers modest guardrails or an evaluation period.
Generally supportive.
Views doubling the exclusion as pro-growth tax relief that reduces barriers to property transactions and burdensome taxation on homeowners.
Prefers fewer restrictions and permanent changes.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple, popular narrow tax change but large unoffset revenue cost and lack of compromise features reduce standalone odds; more likely as part of a larger package.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize regressivity and want income limits or offsets
Simple, popular narrow tax change but large unoffset revenue cost and lack of compromise features reduce standalone odds; more likely as pa…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for More Homes on the Market Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.