One of the bills, in the Senate, is a Democratic initiative and enjoys broad bipartisan support. It is the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act, which would prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising and promotion of prescription drugs and biologics.
The other is a Republican initiative in Congress. It is the No Tax on Home Sales Act—H.R. 4327, according to which any profit from a home sale, no matter how large, would be tax-free if the home was a primary residence.
The Senate bill would only prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of approved prescription pharmaceuticals and biologics, sparing medical devices, dietary supplements, cosmetics, over-the-counter drugs, compounded drugs, and other marketed but unapproved drugs.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising refers to the marketing and advertising of pharmaceutical products directly to consumers as patients, as opposed to targeting health professionals specifically. The term is primarily synonymous with the advertising of prescription medicines via mass media platforms—most commonly on television and in magazines, but also on online platforms. The bill defines DTC advertising as “any promotional communication targeting consumers, including through television, radio, print media, digital platforms, and social media, for purposes of marketing such a drug."
Separately, several Republican members of Congress, including Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), introduced the No Handouts for Drug Advertisements Act, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to prevent companies from deducting expenses relating to DTC advertising of prescription-only drugs in tax filings.
Although there is bipartisan support for change in this area, the bill faces numerous challenges, including claims that it is unconstitutional. Even if the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act is enacted, it would almost certainly be challenged on constitutional grounds and may not withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment protections for truthful, non-misleading speech, including protections for commercial speech. Therefore, efforts to constrain or limit the profitability of DTC advertising of prescription drugs and biologics, such as the No Handouts for Drug Advertisements Act, may be more successful than attempts to ban it outright.
Regarding the No Tax on Home Sales Act—H.R. 4327, this bill would adopt housing policies similar to those in Canada and Switzerland, aimed at increasing housing supply, and President Donald Trump is considering supporting it to eliminate the capital gains tax on home sales.
Under present rules, if a married couple purchased a four-bedroom home for $400,000 in the 1990s and sold it for $1.2 million in 2025, their capital gain would be $800,000. Under current law, they could exclude up to $500,000, leaving $300,000 subject to a 20% capital gains tax, and they would owe $60,000. The proposed legislation would eliminate this tax burden, saving them the full $60,000.
The National Association of Realtors' data indicates that one-third of homeowners, or about 30 million families, have enough equity to exceed the present exemption limits, resulting in a high tax burden.
Both bills are aimed at curbing these excesses and deserve full support from all of us.
Regarding the practice of constant commercials urging patients to pressure their doctors to prescribe certain drugs, they should not be construed under the protection of freedom of expression, because these products can be highly harmful to patients' health and well-being, and only medical professionals should be free to discern the value of the products that pharmaceutical companies are advertising. That is why advertisements for tobacco and certain addictive substances have been banned. However, if this bill were rejected on constitutional grounds, the other bill that would eliminate the tax exemption for companies that are deducting expenses related to DTC advertising of prescription-only drugs in tax filings, at the very least, it would discourage pharmaceutical companies and force them to reevaluate this massive and reckless propaganda.
Regarding the bill to remove the abusive capital gains tax from homeowners who sell their homes for more than they paid for them, their decision to do so is part of their private lives using property that belongs to them, rather than as a speculative commercial deal. Indeed, it's not a business transaction when it involves your permanent residence; it's about fairness.
Indeed, a homeowner shouldn't be taxed like an investor. This is about protecting equity and helping the entire market function more efficiently, because this release of capital gains funds would provide an important incentive for homeowners who want to adapt to new housing circumstances in their daily lives, boosting the real estate market and leading to a greater volume of new home construction.
In short, the capital gains tax, which housing economists refer to as a "stay-put penalty," acts as a disincentive for homeowners to list their homes on the open market and is detrimental to the country's economy as a whole.
Comments powered by CComment