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
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    5 months ago

    Can you explain?

    I realize the point of the article is that he isnā€™t some wealthy elite like the vast majoring of politicians. I think if one wishes to drive this point to everyone, one should not leave out details that would allow someone to dismiss it entirely no matter how wrong they would be for dismissing it.

    Iā€™m not saying it should be dismissed. Perhaps I wasnā€™t clear about that. Iā€™m looking at it from the perspective of trying to change or win minds. And I think itā€™s best to include a more complete picture even if the additional details do not change the picture much if at all.

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

        Iā€™m not upset. The other commentor might be. But Iā€™m not.

        I guess I always thought you included retirement accounts in net worth because they carry a cash value even if it hasnā€™t been cashed out yet. Just like you would include shares in a company in someoneā€™s net worth even if they hadnā€™t sold the shares.

        Perhaps pensions are slightly different. Everyone I work with who opted for the pension over a 401k includes their pension in their net worth and, to my understanding, so do the financial planners that work with the Union.