Over the next few months, the White House is likely to propose two major tax changes that could impact the housing sector.

One, a tax credit for first-time buyers, is likely to be welcomed by those who have yet to get a toehold on the housing ladder. But it is totally unnecessary, at least right now. The other, abolishing a little-known tax benefit accorded to investors, could upset the real estate continuum up and down the line.

Giving a tax credit to renters who want to buy their first houses is a noble, but not a new, idea. It was first offered in the 1970s to jump-start the slumbering new-home sector, and it was resurrected during the Bush and Obama administrations to help pull housing out of the Great Recession of 2008.

In the ‘70s, the tax credit was $2,000, which looks like chicken feed compared to the $15,000 credit President Biden has talked about. But “it worked like gangbusters,” David Seiders, the former chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders, has been quoted as saying.

In 2008, President Bush brought back the credit to help raise the country out of the Great Recession, which was caused largely by overzealous lenders granting loans to unqualified borrowers. In ‘08, the tax credit was a maximum of $7,500. But in the subsequent two years, President Obama raised it to $8,000.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the credit did help to initially boost home sales and prices, as it was intended, though modestly. Now, President Biden is said to be considering asking Congress to clear another first-time buyer credit.

With $15,000 in hand, research from Zillow says, 9.3 million renters -- nearly 1 in 3 -- would have enough cash to cover their entire down payments on a median-priced home in 40 of the country’s 50 largest metropolitan areas.

But here’s the problem: The last thing the market needs is more would-be buyers.

People are already falling all over themselves and one-upping each other to win the few houses on the market. According to a recent CNN report, a run-of-the-mill fixer-upper in Silver Spring, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C., drew 88 offers -- 76 all-cash, and 15 sight-unseen. Listed at $275,000, it sold for $460,000.

As of the end of March, according to realty data firm Altos Research, the inventory of unsold houses nationally stood at 313,000. That’s 58% fewer houses than the 747,000 on the market the same time last year.

So, no -- housing does not need a tax credit for first-timers; rather, it needs more houses for sale. Maybe a tax break for owners to persuade them that now’s the time to sell is in order, instead. One idea floating around is to suspend or reduce capital gains taxes for anyone selling during a specific time period.

Maybe that would provide an additional incentive for the large percentage of owners who told Zillow researchers recently that they are not interested in selling, many because they are worried about finding or affording a replacement house.

Biden should also shelve his proposal to eliminate Section 1031 like-kind exchanges, which allow property owners to defer taxes on the disposal of one property by replacing it with another. This, too, has been run up the flagpole by previous administrations as a way to generate more revenue, but it has never received much traction.

Most people have no clue about Section 1031, but the 100-year-old rule is a key tax benefit in the real estate community. It mostly impacts the commercial sector, but it is claimed in the residential field, as well. Local community governments and nonprofit organizations also use like-kind exchanges to conserve land for the public benefit.

Like-kind exchanges are particularly important in land development and multifamily housing: two investments which are highly illiquid. By taking advantage of the rule, builders and developers can rebalance their portfolios without having to generate enough cash to pay taxes. Without the benefit, experts say, many of these properties would languish, remaining underutilized.

Biden has called for Section 1031’s repeal for taxpayers with incomes above $400,000. I’m all for making everyone pay their fair share. But it’s not as if investors use the provision to skirt capital gains taxes altogether. Rather, when the proceeds of a sale are directed into a new property within 180 days, the tax on the exchange is deferred, not forgiven.

The tax eventually comes due when the profits from the last trade are finally pocketed.

According to a 2015 study by two college professors, David Ling from the University of Florida and Milena Petrova of Syracuse University, nearly 88% of exchanges end in taxable sales, yielding more taxable gains than properties bought and sold through regular taxable sales.

Realty interests maintain the exchange rules are among the most important of all tax provisions for investors and real estate professionals. Recently, in a rare show of unity, more than 30 realty organizations -- including heavyweights like the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders and the Mortgage Bankers Association -- sent letters to key congressional committees and the Treasury Department outlining how Section 1031 benefits the marketplace.

“Like-kind exchanges allow investments to be shifted to the most productive and efficient uses,” says NAR President Charlie Oppler. Without it, the ripple effect would impact realty brokers and agents, title companies, appraisers, inspectors and everyone else along the real estate chain.

Everyone, it has been said, enjoys their 15 minutes of fame. But these days, that’s just about all the time homebuyers are allowed to give a house the once-over and make a decision.

Southern California realty agent Jeff Dowler calls it real estate’s version of speed dating, and says buyers in today’s inventory-depleted market must be decisive. Otherwise, someone in the horde of other house hunters will make the decision for them.

Gone are the days when a buyer could linger longer, agents report. In the old days, you could wander around to your heart’s content: Stroll through the house, measure some rooms for your furniture, discuss possible remodeling projects, meander around the grounds.

Back then, you could even come back for a second or third visit. But not anymore. Now, you’re lucky to get 15 minutes -- a whopping 900 seconds -- to look around. And when the pressure is on and other would-be buyers are waiting outside the front door, those precious seconds tick by awfully fast.

According to ShowingTime, a service agents use to manage buyer visits, an “unprecedented” 75 markets registered double-digit showings per listing in February. A year earlier, only four markets had at least 10 showings per listing. It’s a “powerful trend” of “more and more showings concentrated on dwindling inventory,” said Chief Analytics Officer Daniil Cherkasskiy.

But is a mere quarter of an hour really enough time to view a house and decide whether to make an offer? In a recent conversation on ActiveRain, some agents said it’s not, while others said it is. But most maintained that in today’s overheated market, this is often the way it has to be.

“Fifteen minutes definitely is not enough time,” said Arizona agent Brian England, who is affiliated with Vacasa. “But in this crazy market, I completely understand.”

Dorie Dillard of Coldwell Banker Realty said house hunters in her Austin, Texas, market get a whopping 20 minutes. “With such low inventory, when a house hits the market, you better have your track shoes,” she advised.

When Utah agent Wanda Kubat-Nerdin of Red Rock Real Estate lists a house, she allows at least 30 minutes for each showing -- “That way, no rushing” -- and she also “locks the front door so we are not interrupted by early agents and their buyers.”

North Carolina’s Nina Hollander, of Coldwell Banker Realty, goes one better: She gives buyers up to 45 minutes, depending on the size of the house. “At the end of the day, it still gets lots of people in,” Hollander said. “And those who really have had a chance to look thoroughly at a house are prospective buyers who will make offers -- and not suffer from buyer’s remorse.”

On the other hand, some agents believe buyers don’t even need 15 minutes. Connecticut agent Ed Silva of Mapleridge Realty said some buyers can decide in five minutes, spending the other 10 figuring out what to put in their offer.

Debb Janes of ViewHomes in Camas, Washington, agreed. “I’d say most people can get a feel for a home in 15 minutes,” Janes said, while adding that “it can take longer to really explore more of the home’s nuances.”

“Getting 15 minutes is like a lifetime in today’s seller’s market,” added Endre Barath of Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices in Beverly Hills. We often make judgments about other people in 30 seconds or less, Barath noted, so why not a house?

Illinois agent Lyn Sims of RE/MAX Suburban thinks the short time frame is actually “a good thing” -- one that culls the perennially undecided from the pack. For some people, there’s never enough time to make up their minds. Sims points out that there are many buyers who take an hour and a half to look around, just to say “no thanks.”

Truth be told, only you can answer the question of whether 15 minutes is enough. You must be comfortable making the decision; you have to write the checks, and you have to be able to sleep at night.

Remember, though, that submitting an offer is not the end of the process: It’s just the beginning. The seller has to accept the offer. Then, assuming you’ve been preapproved for financing, you have to get your lender’s final say-so. The appraisal has to support the sales price, and the inspector needs a few days to do his or her thing.

That means you have time to change your mind if you have a change of heart. Even when your offer is accepted, there are plenty of ways to get out of the deal. “Our contracts have a million outs to kill the agreement and recover your earnest money deposit,” said Richard Foster of Nevada Perfect Homes in Henderson.

In the end, the key to the short window given buyers these days is being decisive. Know what you can spend, know what you want, and go for it. And for crying out loud, be on time for your visit, lest you lose your place in line.

As the market for vacation homes continues to forge ahead at an almost unprecedented pace, the two major suppliers of financing funds have put a lid on the number of mortgages for such properties they will buy from primary lenders.

As of April 1, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are limiting their purchases of loans on vacation and investment properties to no more than 7% of their portfolios during any 52-week period, striking a blow to a sector that has flourished, in part, because of the pandemic.

The ceiling is “well below” the current 6.4% run rate of purchase loan applications for second residences, according to economists at the Mortgage Bankers Association. Moreover, second-home applications in February were up 37% from the same month in 2020.

But Fannie and Freddie, the two government-sponsored enterprises that act as intermediaries between worldwide investors and main street lenders, are now required to restrict their activity under a stock purchase agreement negotiated with the Treasury Department during the Trump administration.

The move comes on the heels of another rules change instituted by the GSEs late last year. That change cut back on loans to people who buy into so-called “condotels,” which are properties where individual units are rented through a central reservation system to vacationers on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. That strikes folks who want to purchase apartments, as opposed to individual houses, as well as timeshares and other forms of interval ownership.

A Fannie spokesman has said his company is concerned that some resort condo structures do not live up to the requirements that they be residential in nature. In the past, Fannie has been more active in resort lending than its secondary market rival.

Neither company has had much to say about the limit on loan purchases. The MBA has raised concerns, maintaining the cap will result in higher interest rates, tighter underwriting and reduced availability. But the Urban Institute says the restriction is folly.

Noting that Fannie and Freddie have been exceeding the 7% ceiling since 2013, the nonpartisan think tank says lending on these properties is a “more lucrative part” of their portfolios, enabling them to “cross-subsidize” the rest of their purchases, including loans to low- and moderate-income buyers.

“Even if there were some policy justification to limit the GSEs’ support of these more profitable books of business, the imposition of hard limits makes little sense,” said the UI in a report.

Right now, though, the demand for second homes is such that more financing choices are needed, not fewer. Indeed, the call for loans on vacation properties is increasing at twice the pace of that for primary residences, according to the latest tabulation from Redfin. The reason? Many former office workers are realizing they can successfully work from almost anywhere.

And Redfin economist Taylor Marr says this is no fad.

“Many Americans have realized remote work is here to stay, allowing some fortunate people to work from a lakefront cabin or a ski condo indefinitely,” he says.

People have always yearned for a place to steal away to for a few days, if not weeks. Some hold their retreats close to the vest, allowing no one to use them, save family. But others have been able to monetize their holiday houses by renting them out. Some do so just to cover their carrying costs, but others pocket a hefty profit.

Now, the work-from-home acronym has taken on another letter: WFVH, as in work-from-vacation-home. “If you can work from anywhere,” says Gregg Logan of the RCLCO advisory firm, “why not work in a nice location?”

Rich Schulhoff of Brooklyn MLS agrees: “There is a more fluid blend between work and life.”

In an update of a consumer survey taken just before the pandemic, RCLCO found that most second-home markets “experienced dramatic growth” in the latter half of 2020. Not only were a third of current holiday house owners happier with their places than they were before the pandemic, a third of would-be buyers said they were more interested now than prior to COVID-19.

Wannabes are not particularly turned off by what some consider elevated prices in many popular destinations, either. More than half told pollsters that now is the right time to pounce, while just 15% said now is not a good time.

Remote work is not the only driving factor for the trend, but it is the strongest one. And Marr thinks many vacation places purchased this year will ultimately become primary residences.

“Even when offices reopen, folks will be able to spend more time than ever before in their second homes because many employers will continue to offer flexible remote-work policies,” the economist says. ”With workers still commuting in one or two days a week, resort towns that are near major cities will likely continue to heat up.”

That’s certainly been the case in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, 50 miles from Milwaukee and 83 from Chicago. Melissa Killham, a Redfin agent, says she’s seen demand surge in that market, where tours have doubled among folks who can’t or won’t travel any farther during the pandemic.

A report from Apartment List counts the “untethered class” as 8.7 million, or 5.6% of the total workforce. These are young, mobile workers with remote-friendly occupations who aren’t tied down by family obligations. So they can go wherever they want.

Perhaps that’s why 15% of all newly built houses these days are vacation properties, as the National Association of Home Builders reports.