Welcome to the RealTown Real Estate Network!
Member Login | Join RealTown
The Real Estate Network
RealTown  Community  RealTalk  Market Conditions  Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Decline More Than Forecast

RealTown's RealTalk

Back

Bookmark and Share  

Create New Discussion Digest Archive

 Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Decline More Than Forecast

Created by:
Saul Klein, Business/Management ,  San Diego,  CA

Date: November 29, 2011, Number of Replies: 40


View Profile

>>

Residential real estate prices dropped more than forecast in the year ended September, showing the industry at the center of the 2008 financial crisis continues to struggle.

The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values in 20 cities dropped 3.6 percent in September from the same month in 2010 after decreasing 3.8 percent in the year ended August, the group said today in New York. The median forecast of 32 economists in a Bloomberg News survey projected a 3 percent decrease.

<<

Moreā€¦

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/home-prices-in-20-u-s-cities-fell-more-than-forecast-in-year-to-september.html

Saul

To Top Quote   Reply
Robert King Licensed Real Estate Broker,  Saint Petersburg,  FL

Date: November 30, 2011

Saul says.... "Residential real estate prices dropped more than forecast in the year ended September, showing the industry at the center of the 2008 financial crisis continues to struggle". So... what are you telling us Saul? Are you saying that the last 6 years of decline are NOT OVER? What's new? This is why selling in a down market has not upside WHEN THERE IS NO SIGNS OF AN UPSIDE since mid 2005!!!! The overall market is NOT RESPONDING to any of the political stimulation regardless of whether is coming from Wall Street, Main Street on any other street in the USA. Mathematically, America can not pay it's debt, so either we "default" or "stimulate". So what's it going to be??? More of the same stuff we been getting deeper in for the past 3-5 years or what? There are no signs of turning this economy around according to history, but who's looking at history? Look at Europe, it's on the brink of miss-guided failure and we think one day (black Friday or cyber Monday) is going to turn this economy around! America is so deep asleep in it's socio-economic situation... the average American doesn't know what to make of it. Give us something to chew on Saul, we've heard all this BAD NEWS before. What's new???
Robert L. King
Saint Petersburg, Florida
Where last months news was that our real estate sales have increased. REallly LOL
To Top Quote   Reply
Ronny Geenen Real Estate ,  Glendora,  CA

Date: November 30, 2011

Saul says.... "Residential real estate prices dropped more than forecast in the year ended September, showing the industry at the center of the 2008 financial crisis continues to struggle".
And I have the feeling this struggle keep going. There is hardly no middle class anymore. The former middle class is slowly becoming the poor and bottom class.
Before America was floating on a solid middle class, but today there is a 5% rich group and a 95% poor group, that is not able to save money, to buy a home and name it. The Thee Party and Occupy Wall street are both a clear indication of the situation.
Greed is ruling today.
Ronny
To Top Quote   Reply
Scott Baker,  Cincinnati,  OH

Date: December 1, 2011

There is plenty of middle class, always has been, always will be. Our increase in government spending since 1980 has been astronomical...and everyone knows the government does nothing efficiently. So when you take personal property, citizens money, and you decide to spend it on things, , stuff, causes, widgets, etc. that the person themselves wouldn't have spent it on, the economy becomes less efficient. Those dollars, that would have been spent on things the private citizen needs or desires, have now been used ineffectively....and the private sector of the economy suffers. Businesses that would have "made it", now go out of business. So unless you work for the government, you might be a little concerned about YOUR economy.

To Top Quote   Reply
Robert King Licensed Real Estate Broker,  Saint Petersburg,  FL

Date: December 2, 2011

I would like someone in this group to DEFINE what "middle class" is? Is the middle class the educated class or the dumb-down class that thought an education would make you competitive so your career opportunity would be a guarantee. What happened, as real estate values plunged, tuition rose and grants became as readily available as mortgage money in the first five years of this century. Something tells me that education has not served us as we had hoped or expected. Yes we have newer faster and more efficient toys and gadgets, smarter phones, smarter cars but are we better off than the former generation? If I were an Occupy minded kind of guy I would protest the tuition that isn't supplying the competitive career as the former generation promised. I believe there are and have always been two classes in Americana, those who can afford the luxuries of life and those who lack. Everybody falls in one of those two groups, some can maintain a standard of living because their income can afford them credit worthy of responsibility. Then there are those who don't need credit, because they are the ones who have the money to invest so they don't have to put in hard labor. How can the stock market be at 6500 just 2 years ago and now it's over 12,000 and climbing, meanwhile... 9% of the country unemployed with an equal amount under-employed or part timing it? The only way the wealthy can stay wealthy is by investing their money in to someone or some group willing to go into DEBT. So the obvious question is, can debt bail us out of debt, so the wealthy can stay wealthy? Will... Can it, we've had more than 1.5 trillion in stimulus since September 05 and still no solution in the real estate market? But the market climbs 490 point in one day (mostly in the first 30 minutes after the market opened), on the news, "AMERICA IS GOING TO BAIL OUT THE EURO". If we can't pay our own debts, what makes the European think they can be saved by the dollar? Something is wrong with that picture, accept it doesn't seem to faze the INVESTORS or that 5% who suffer NO LACK. Is that greed, and if so, how do you regulate it? When I survey all the disastrous regulation from the banks to the oil drillers and suppliers I have to ask my self do we need more of regulation? Maybe we need representatives with more character not electability. One thing you can always expect from a Capital System, everybody gets what they deserve, that's why justice always serves a better product than fairness.
Robert L. King
Saint Petersburg, Florida
To Top Quote   Reply
Robert Taylor Licensed Real Estate Agent,  Birmingham,  MI

Date: December 2, 2011

"I would like someone in this group to DEFINE what "middle class" is? Is the middle class the educated class or the dumb-down class that thought an education would make you competitive so your career opportunity would be a guarantee."

The definition of middle class may depend more on the country you are in than anything else.

In Europe and many other places for example, you have the indigent, the working class, the middle class and the upper class (generally). The differences are based on both net worth and education and of course are all generalizations.

  • Indigent, you do not have a job; do not have an education; and rely on others to provide for you.
  • Working Class, you have a job; do not have an education; and are able to feed and clothe yourself and your family; provide shelter; but have no net worth.
  • Middle Class, you have a job; you have an education; you are able to feed and clothe yourself and your family; provide shelter; and have some net worth.
  • Upper Class, you have a job; you have an education; you are able to feed and clothe yourself and your family; provide shelter; and have substantial net worth.

One of the things that makes America very different than most other places is that our structure is different (and again these are generalizations).1. Indigent, you do not have a job; do not have an education; and rely on others to provide for you.

  • Indigent, you do not have a job; do not have an education; and rely on others to provide for you.
  • Middle Class, you have a job; you are able to feed and clothe yourself and your family; provide shelter; and have some net worth.
  • Upper Class, you have a job; you have an education; you are able to feed and clothe yourself and your family; provide shelter; and have substantial net worth.

The difference of course is that in Europe, where the working class is generally labors with little to no education it is not present in America. In America, that group is part of our middle class. It is also what brought many to this country from others as we were growing as a nation.

To Top Quote   Reply
Tish Osborne Licensed Real Estate Agent,  New Port Richey,  FL

Date: December 2, 2011

Taylor, I don't think you can define the middle class in social terms. There are too many variations in America (no college Gates in blue jeans, reclusive millionaires, etc.). In Europe, where class still makes a strong social impact, I'd bet it's easier.

I define middle class by economics. Median household income in 2010 was $49,445. So figure $30,000 to $75,000 is middle class. You can adjust salaries for inflation over time and generally make good comparisons.

I think education is important, not to define a class but rather to provide mobility from one class to another.

Overall, the middle class has seen some gains here and there since 1970, but in the last decade, middle class income has fallen 7 percent from a high of $53,164 in 2000. Not many climbed into the upper class; however, the change pushed some of those at the lower end of the middle class below the poverty level. A whopping 46.2 million people (or 15.1% of the U.S. population) live in poverty, a 17-year high, according to CNNMoney.

(That's why I can't understand the rants against those receiving welfare and Social Security, disability, Medicare and Medicaid. They still live in poverty. No body ever got rich on welfare or SS.)

And job losses between 2008 to 2010 hit the middle class. Middle class earners lost almost 4 million jobs, while those lower and those higher lost about half that much. (graphic-http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/index.htm

It is increasingly difficult to move up from the middle class. For most of the middle class, their equity is in their homes. Those values have taken a beating; however, they are still above 2000 values. Even accounting for inflation, it still costs more to buy a home, fill your gas tank, go to the doctor and put food on the table than it did only 10 years ago.

"And not only is it more expensive to live a middle-class life, it costs more to get there too. The price of a college education -- still considered the ticket to higher wages and a better lifestyle -- has surged over the last decade, even in spite of the recession," an article from Oct. 14 CNNMoney says.

The changes we've undergone have affected the US socially as well. People are postponing marriage, child-rearing, retirement. The census data showed about 14.2% of all young people ages 25 to 34 are still living in their parents' homes this year, compared to about 11.8% before the recession began in 2007.

The upper class economically has become deeply striated. In fact, according to the IRS, the 400 richest people in America paid -- on average -- only 18.11% of their income in taxes in 2008. A person, also upper class, making $100,000 but without the investment income (taxed at 15 percent) will pay upwards of 25 percent of their income in taxes.

(Take a look at all the high paid CEOs -- they will take $5 mil of their pay in actual salary and the rest in company shares. The income from the shares is taxed at 15 percent).

Did you know that only 1.8 percent of Americans make more than $250,000 a year? Yet they are considered upper class along with the 413 billionaires in this country (up from 371 in 2010). And those who make that $250,000 are paying a higher actual rate in income taxes than the super rich. Nine percent of all millionaires and above pay NO income taxes at all.

With people falling off the lower middle class into poverty or the lower class and the upper-upper class climbing like never before, yes, the middle class is taking a beating and growing smaller.

In fact, according to the IRS, the 400 richest people in America paid -- on average -- only 18.11% of their income in taxes in 2008. By comparison, people who make $34,500 pay a comparatively hefty 25% of their income in taxes before deductions.



See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/iMeubf
To Top Quote   Reply
Ronny Geenen Real Estate ,  Glendora,  CA

Date: December 4, 2011

Tish,
Thank you for that article.
Ronny
To Top Quote   Reply
Scott Baker,  Cincinnati,  OH

Date: December 4, 2011

Numbers, numbers...

in 1980 the top 10 Percent paid 49% of all Federal Taxes, but some felt this wasn't their Fair Share so each year their tax contributions have gone up, up, up...in 2010 the same top 10 Percent (>$113,799 income) paid 70% of all Federal Taxes, Let me repeat, the Top 10 Percent now pay 70% of all federal taxes. Their Fair Share? Apparently some think not.

But wait, we're not saying the top 10% isn't paying their fair share, they are. It's the top 1% that we are talking about.....

1980 the top 1% paid 19%, but once again, not their Fair Share, so up, and up, and up, and up, until in 2010 the top 1% paid 38%...

It's easy to spend other people's money isn't it?

Shared sacrifice only seems to mean those at the very top...

To Top Quote   Reply
Tish Osborne Licensed Real Estate Agent,  New Port Richey,  FL

Date: December 5, 2011

Scott,

First, you make the mistake of saying "federal taxes" and not "federal income taxes". Big difference. Here's how.

You say the top 10 percent wealthiest Americans pay 70 percent of federal taxes.
But you're wrong. That statistic misleads on the actual federal tax burden because (1) it fails to include payroll taxes, which every worker pays, and which fall disproportionately on the middle class, and (2) because it doesn't reflect that high-income Americans earn a disproportionate share of income.
Payroll taxes account for 34 percent of federal revenues. They only apply to income earned on the job - not income from capital gains on investments, which make up a much greater share of the income of the top 10 percent. And payroll taxes for Social Security are capped at $106,800.
Wealthier Americans face a disproportionately lower burden from payroll taxes. According to the independent, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the wealthiest 10 percent only pay 25 percent of all payroll taxes.
Nine percent of people making a million dollars a year or more pay no income taxes. They include those living off investments (taxed at 15 percent capital gains, about the same as a high school grad on his first job).
Counting both payroll and income taxes, the top 10 percent only pay about 50 percent of that tax burden - not much larger than their share of our nation's income (around 42 percent).
Many say 49 percent of households pay no federal taxes at all.
But that's wrong, too. Around 82 percent of Americans pay income or payroll taxes, and those who don't are mostly elderly people. As confirmed in a "Reality Check" article by the Washington Post, of the remaining 18 percent, 10 percent are elderly people who generally don't earn salaries or wages, and 7 percent are people with incomes under $20,000 per year.
Also, you don't include taxes that all people pay -- sales taxes, gas taxes, utility taxes, license taxes, property taxes, doc stamp fees, and all the user fees -- and poor people pay them at the same rates as the rich.
Of the 49 percent who don't pay income taxes, they still pay these user taxes. Sometimes these taxes account for 20 percent of their annual income. (This does not include hedge fund managers who pay no income taxes. Also, renters pay property taxes through their rents.)

The rich use employees who were educated by our public schools, supported by all our tax dollars; they run their trucks on our highways, again on all our contributions, even the poor pay gas taxes; they use the communications grid and the power grid that would not be available unless we all paid for them. They enjoy the police and fire protection all taxpayers provide to protect what they have. We give this to them. What do they give to us?

Falling income. Median household income fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation. The last 10 years is the first decade since the 1930s that the median income has fallen, not risen, for most Americans.

People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007.

The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other four-fifths of the population.

Do the rich pay their fair share? No. Not by any measure of history since the 70s; only if you take us back to before the Depression. You want to go there? You want to exchange our republic for a plutocracy?

To Top Quote   Reply
Neil Blumberg Licensed Real Estate Broker,  Louisville,  KY

Date: December 5, 2011

Tish you're absolutely right. Scott forgot to mention that the ever widening gap between rich and poor is decimating the middle class. So, even if it were true (which it is not) that the top 10% pay a disproportionate percentage of tax, the actual dollar amount they pay is entirely from disccretionary dollars, whereas for those at the bottom and middle the taxes cut into their non discretionary survival funds.

Example. Wall Street Wally needs an emergency gall bladder operation. Because he can afford and has the best medical insurance with a low deductable, it costs him $200.

Real Town Roger, who has a mortgage, 2.5 kids and child support payments (50% of marriges end in divorce), needs the same operation. He had to make difficult choices when deciding on medical insurance coverage and deductables. The operation ends up costing him $10,000.

For Real Town Roger this is a huge percentage of his income. He must cut down on essentials if he wishes to keep his credit and home. Wall Street Wally on the other hand, orders another plate of Almas caviar,quaffs his Sapphire Martini and continues completly oblivious to the devastation the operation has wrecked on his fellow American.

The greedy goons of the revolting right must become history. We need fairness in government. We need a middle class. Tax reform and medical insurance reform are 2 essential componants.

To Top Quote   Reply
Scott Baker,  Cincinnati,  OH

Date: December 5, 2011

Thank you Tish, I stand corrected, Federal Income Taxes...

Numbers, numbers...

in 1980 the top 10 Percent paid 49% of all Federal IncomeTaxes, but some felt this wasn't their Fair Share so each year their tax contributions have gone up, up, up...in 2010 the same top 10 Percent (>$113,799 income) paid 70% of all Federal Income Taxes, Let me repeat, the Top 10 Percent now pay 70% of all federal income taxes. Their Fair Share? Apparently some think not.

But wait, we're not saying the top 10% isn't paying their fair share, they are. It's the top 1% that we are talking about.....

1980 the top 1% paid 19%, but once again, not their Fair Share, so up, and up, and up, and up, until in 2010 the top 1% paid 38%...

It's easy to spend other people's money isn't it?

Shared sacrifice only seems to mean those at the very top...

The folks at the top keep paying more and more and more in federal INCOME taxes each year but yet, we still increase our debt by about $100 billion per month...perhaps we have a spending problem?

To Top Quote   Reply
Glory bee Costa Licensed Real Estate Agent,  St. Michaels,  MD

Date: December 5, 2011

Trish
I have read yor posts, and appreciate your research. However, I do have a question. Your complaint about the top wealthy not paying their share of income tax. Do you top and consider, (not all) but most have worked their way up. They took all the chances, responsibility, they should be rewarded for their efforts, along with the employment they offer others. I owned 3 business, construction, trucking and last a real estate brokerage business. Now I will say the most money was made of the first two ventures. Year ago I might add. I borrowed money to get started, went with put a pay check in the beginning I but always met my payroll). Once things were up and running I took every possible tax deduction, I earned it. So why do you begrude the wealth their tax breaks
.
Let me say I agree with some on wall street scene, but other who have earned their wealth, I have no problem with the percentages of taxes they pay.
Ad they need more control of government spendin for the lower icome. No problem when it is deserved, but too many use the system.

--
Glory Bee Costa ABR, ASR, CRS, CSR, GRI, E-PRO, SRES
Broker Associate
Exit Latham Realty
410-822-2152 EXT 305
Cell 410-310-9081
www.Maryland-Waterfront-Homes.com
Fax 1-866-381-5507
Glory@GloryBeeCosta.com



To Top Quote   Reply
Tish Osborne Licensed Real Estate Agent,  New Port Richey,  FL

Date: December 6, 2011

Hi, Glory Bee!

I don't think anyone accomplishes anything (or fails either) entirely by oneself. We are just too interconnected today. Yes, the risk is there, and the, what, moxey?, to strike out, to lead. But I can't think of any instance where we can claim all of anything all on our own.

The effective tax, what they really pay, of those 413 billionaires in America is about 18 percent of the millions they make. In my first job, at a pet shop, I was paying 17 percent in federal taxes on a minimum wage of, I think, $3.25 an hour. I don't think that's fair. Those who benefit most should pay the most.

As to control of government spending for the lower income, you could take all the welfare paid for the last decade and it would not surpass the $4.6 trillion saved by the wealthy with the Bush Tax Cuts, including the capital gains tax, between 2010, when it was extended, to 2013, when it is due to expire. That could take a big chunk out of the deficit.

Finally, who got us into this mess in the first place? Welfare recipients? Teachers? Seniors, education, state pensions? No, but all are being targeted for the cuts. The cause of the Great Recession was the greedy folks like that head of Countrywide, who walked away with $400,000,000 and paid just a $2 million fine.

They took the deregulation of the financial industry and the encouragement of an administration that wanted everyone in a home of their own by 2010 and turned it into a greedy scheme that collapsed the economies of the whole world. Dang, if that don't sound a lot worse than what a single mother collects from TANF.

I worked 15 years as a news reporter and 15 as a social worker. My experiences lead me to different conclusions than some on RealTown. I merely am trying to point out that few things are so black and white and require consideration of a lot of things before forming an opinion.

To Top Quote   Reply
Tish Osborne Licensed Real Estate Agent,  New Port Richey,  FL

Date: December 6, 2011

Scott, did you read anything past the first line?

Simply put, the wealthy pay about 50 percent of taxes because they earn 42 percent of all the income!

The top 10 percent have 80-90 percent of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75 percent of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10 percent of the people own the United States of America, according to a study released by the University of California at www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth-new.html.

Seventy percent of our economy is consumer driven. If you concentrate all the wealth and income in the top 20 percent, you have fewer people with buying power, thus the economy continues to spiral down.

Do we have a spending problem? YES, because wealth has become concentrated in so few hands and middle class salaries have been stagnant, the majority of Americans have less discretionary dollars to spend and the government has less revenue to spend.

To Top Quote   Reply