On average, homes in the US appreciate at about the rate of inflation, and the choice to rent vs. buy is favorable in some markets, unfavorable in many others. It's nowhere near as clear-cut as the comments in this thread would lead you to believe.
It depends on how long you owned and lived in the home before the sale and how much profit you made. If you owned and lived in the place for two of the five years before the sale, then up to $250,000 of profit is tax-free.
If you are married and file a joint return, the tax-free amount doubles to $500,000. The law lets you "exclude" this much otherwise taxable profit from your taxable income. (If you sold for a loss, though, you can't take a deduction for that loss.)
up to $250,000 of profit is tax-free
If your profit isn't 6 figures, choose this option carefully.
Are you referring to the over-55-once-in-a-lifetime exemption that was replaced in 1997 with the introduction of the Taxpayer Relief Act? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
Homes are heavily taxes if you don't live in them, to the above poster's point.
Property taxes also apply to home ownership.
Regarding property tax, yes, but dividends are taxed as well and you generally are going to pay capital gains in the specific situation I’m describing if you replace “primary residence” with “stock”. Primary residences with mortgages have better tax treatment, really. If it didn’t I wouldn’t have a mortgage.
Until this year, you could deduct those taxes up to your total federal tax liability (which may be what the parent is saying), but now you're limited to $10,000. Either way, it's a lot more burdensome than most investments.
Also, the point about diversification is a valid concern. Would you put (50% of your net worth + loaned money) into only FB/AMZN/XYZ stocks, today (tomorrow)? Probably not.
Like I said, I actually am on your side that the US obsession with homeownership has led to all kinds of bad externalities with poor urban development and income inequality. I'd support all manner of regulation intended to decrease the subsidy we pay out to the middle class in favor of higher density rental environments.
But houses in all but a few markets are and remain "good investments" by any reasonable interpretation. To argue otherwise is to argue in bad faith. Stop it.
What about the interpretation that I don't want to be subject to price fluctuations of a single object that represents a large fraction of my net worth? The argument that I might not wish to manage a property? The argument that I don't want to avail myself of the opportunity to be foreclosed on because I would like to maintain my credit? All those seem reasonable enough to me as factors to consider in defining a good investment (obviously subject to any individual investor's utility function).
Personally I think what should stop is you accusing anyone who disagrees with you of arguing in bad faith.
That only makes sense if you bought the house in cash or if someone is willing to loan you money at 4-5% to buy stocks. Investments aren't zero sum when the government is effectively underwriting your mortgage.
This article is total woo. Sorry.
[1] https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest...
Now, obviously not all investments are winners, even if they are "good" investments in principle. And there are all sorts of very good arguments about why homes should not be subsidized in the way they are, and that our government has made them "too good" in a way that harms the public as a whole. But nonetheless homes in almost all of the US are absolutely good investments. They have been for going on three quarters of a century now and certainly don't show signs of stopping.