Assuming there's anything on the market for $1M. The problems start when there isn't.

> The problems start when there isn't.

And the market always opens up when there isn't because it means the demand goes higher and thus creates new sellers. That also "rises the tide" and increase everyone in the area's house prices. So it nets it self out.

Sure. But it might be $1.6 million, not $1 million, in your example...

Real-life numbers will differ, but that's roughly the point.

But there is a gain, you just turned an illiquid asset into a liquid asset. The fact that this exchange is even possible is why you are even able to say "its worth $2M" in the first place. If you couldn't turn an illiquid asset into a liquid asset it would be worth nothing, so you neither "gain" nor "lose". Would you rather have that scenario?

Lastly - if you see personal value in purchasing a smaller house, wouldn't you expect service providers (agents, movers, etc) to charge you for that value?

https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/3229450-sold-primary-house...

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701

Where's your source?

If you think that's incorrect, what do _you_ think happens with taxes when selling a home for $2 million that was bought for $1 million?

> I said = 2017 - Buy new house for $1M

> you said = But it might be (for the "buy new house") $1.6 million, not $1 million, in your example...

> I said = so they can still afford it.

> you said = You don't get to keep the whole $2M. That's the point.

So, let's do this again.

1. Sell house for $2M

2. Buy house for $1.6M as you suggested

3. Congrats you now have $1.6M in illiquid assets and $400k in liquid assets (cash)

Note - I recognize that my original example was buy at $1M and sell for $2M, where you are correct you're not taxed on the first $500k and the remaining $500k is taxed at capital gains. I also recognize that this whole scenario is purely illustrative and doesn't take into acount all of the transation fees.