Tim Walzā€™s net worth is less than the average Americanā€™s - eviltoast

The all-American working man demeanor of Tim Walzā€”Kamala Harrisā€™s new running mateā€”looks like itā€™s not just an act.

Financial disclosures show Tim Walz barely has any assets to his name. No stocks, bonds, or even property to call his own. Together with his wife, Gwen, his net worth is $330,000, according to aĀ reportĀ by theĀ Wall Street JournalĀ citing financial disclosures from 2019, the year after he became Minnesota governor.

With that kind of meager nest egg, he would be more or less in line with theĀ median figureĀ for Americans his age (heā€™s 60), and even poorer than the average. One in 15 Americans is a millionaire, a recent UBS wealth reportĀ discovered.

Meanwhile, the gross annual income of Walz and his wife, Gwen, amounted to $166,719 before tax in 2022, according to their joint return filed that same year. Walz is even entitled to earn more than the $127,629Ā salary he receivesĀ as state governor, but he has elected not to receive the roughly $22,000 difference.

ā€œWalz represents the stable middle class,ā€ tax lawyer Megan Gorman, who authored a book on the personal finances of U.S. presidents, told the paper.

  • fadedmaster@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    3 months ago

    So now youā€™re back to saying that it is a legal definition. Youā€™re confusing me more. You initially said pensions are legally defined as income. Then you said that legal wasnā€™t the right word and even edited that out of your comment. Now youā€™re back to saying thereā€™s decades of laws. If you donā€™t know whether itā€™s legally defined as income then how am I supposed to know it?

    Everything Iā€™m finding online seems to indicate it can be viewed one way or another depending upon opinion and whether a lump sum option is available. You seem to be saying its always income? You havenā€™t clarified the lump sum option and how a pension with that option should be viewed from your opinion. And from an, albeit quick, look online I canā€™t find legal resources that indicate it is a hard rule. Even the link I provided and even the details you highlighted from that do not say its always a hard rule that all pensions are always income and never an asset.

    I know one case doesnā€™t change decades of laws, but I canā€™t easily find these decades of laws and accounting rules. Most of what Iā€™m finding when trying to look talks about the accounting for managing the pension itself and the assets of the pension which obviously doesnā€™t answer the question at hand.

    So all of that said, do you have a resource you can point me to in order to help educate myself in the legal and accounting rules for how to treat pensions for individual finance and not something from the corporate finance side? Not that I donā€™t trust you, but we are both strangers on the internet after all.