When most people hear the words “mansion taxes,” they think of luxury homes and waterfront properties. But after looking at housing data, I found myself asking a different question. What can the data tell us about how the meaning of a million-dollar home has changed over the years? And the answer is more interesting than I expected.
Lesson 1: A Million-Dollar Home Has Become Much More Common
While there isn’t any official definition of a mansion, in real estate, a million-dollar home has traditionally been considered the entry point into the luxury market. In 2005, there were about 1.5 million owner-occupied homes in the United States valued at least $1 million. They represented only 2% of all owner-occupied homes. By 2024, that number had increased to about 6.9 million homes, accounting for 8%.
This definitely doesn’t mean our country is filled with luxury homes. In many parts of the country, especially coastal areas, it just reflects years of home price appreciation. Homes that once sold for a few hundred-thousand dollars now exceed the million-dollar mark. For example, in Hawaii about 40% of owner-occupied homes are worth at least $1 million. The share is almost that high in the District of Columbia (31.5%) and California (31.3%). In Washington state, it’s 17.4%, followed by Massachusetts (15.5%) and New York (13.6%). Now, compare that with most areas in the Midwest and South. In Mississippi, North Dakota, and West Virginia, only about 1% of owner-occupied homes are worth at least $1 million. States such as Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Ohio are all below 2%.
The first lesson from the data is simple: The definition of a million-dollar home has changed over the years.
Lesson 2: Buyers Pay Attention to Thresholds
Looking at the transaction data, another very interesting finding emerges. Home sales drop significantly once prices move above $1 million. Specifically, since 2015, there have consistently been about 2.4 times more homes sold just below $1 million than just above it. In economics, this is called “bunching,” when transactions cluster around a particular price point.
Why does this happen? Firstly, it’s simply about how buyers think. Many buyers search for just below round numbers, so $999,999 is a common cutoff when purchasing a home. Another reason is that mortgage qualifications change as prices rise. And, in some markets, taxes also begin at that threshold, increasing the total cost of the purchase.
Whatever the reason, the data suggests that buyers don’t view $999,000 and $1,000,000 the same way. But even a very small difference can affect buyers’ decisions.
Lesson 3: Housing Markets Change Much Faster Than Policies
New York is an example of a market where policy hasn’t caught up. The state’s mansion tax threshold has remained at $1 million since 1989. Adjusting for inflation, that threshold would be about $2.7 million today.
In the meantime, home prices have changed substantially since 1989. As of 2024, nearly half of owner-occupied homes in Manhattan are now worth at least $1 million. In Brooklyn, more than one-third have reached that level. The threshold has stayed fixed. However, the market didn’t.
Affordability isn’t the only issue. Transfer taxes can also influence whether homeowners decide to move. Many longtime homeowners don’t want to sell because they refinanced when mortgage rates were below 3%. Selling means giving up that low mortgage and taking on today’s higher borrowing costs. That’s the mortgage lock-in effect. Many of those same homeowners have also accumulated substantial housing wealth. Nationally, about 13.1 million homeowners have capital gains that exceed the current federal exclusion, creating another financial reason to stay put. Add a transfer tax on top of that, and you have what I think of as a triple lock-in effect: mortgage lock-in, capital gains lock-in, and transfer tax lock-in. Each of these increases the cost of moving. Together, they reduce homeowner mobility when mobility is at historic lows. Fewer moves mean fewer existing-homes come onto the market—fewer opportunities for the next generation of buyers.
Lesson 4: The Affordability Cliff – Small Costs Can Affect Affordability
One question that often comes up is who actually pays the transfer tax. Is it the buyer or the seller? In New York, it’s the buyer. In New Jersey, it’s the seller. From an economic perspective, however, the more important point is that the tax becomes part of the transaction. If buyers pay it directly, their upfront cost increases. Then, if sellers pay it, they usually factor that cost into their asking price. So, either way, the tax affects the affordability of a home transaction.
Take New York: The 1% tax on a $1 million home adds another $10,000 to the purchase. That increases the income required to qualify for the home, even by a couple of thousand dollars. However, this increase reduces the number of households statewide that can afford it by about 17,400.
Lesson 5: These Taxes Don’t Only Affect Housing
One of the biggest surprises in the data is that transfer taxes can also apply to commercial real estate. In Los Angeles, for example, Measure ULA applies to many office buildings and other commercial properties. More importantly, Measure ULA was introduced at a time when the office market was already experiencing record-high vacancies, negative absorption, and weaker investment activity. Many of the affected properties are exactly the types of buildings that could be renovated, repurposed, or converted into housing.
So, the data does suggest that timing matters, especially when additional transaction costs are introduced during a challenging market.
Not only timing but also data matters. The broader lesson from the data is that housing markets and tax policies don’t always move together. Understanding how the market changes helps us ask better questions—not only about taxes, but about affordability, mobility, redevelopment, and how housing policy keeps pace with a changing market.










