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.

  • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    Ā·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Just in hypothetical, if you have illicit earning, you probably wonā€™t declare them.

    Edit: this comment seems unpopular, but it has happened in the past. If somebody could tell me why itā€™s so wrong I would appreciate

    • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      Ā·
      4 months ago

      Thatā€™s not how logic works. You donā€™t get to make a claim then demand to be disproven. The burnden of proof is on you, and if the best you have is ā€œidk seems like it could happenā€ then you have fuck all

      • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        4 months ago

        Iā€™m not making a claim, .neither I asked to be disproven. just answering a situation in which it would happen.

        • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          Ā·
          4 months ago

          You indirectly claimed Tim has illicit money:

          if you have illicit earning, you probably wonā€™t declare them

          Then asked to be disproven:

          somebody could tell me why itā€™s so wrong I would appreciate

          • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            4 months ago

            Just in hypothetical, if you have illicit earning, you probably wonā€™t declare them.

            In the hypothetical case somebody has them. Thatā€™s not a claim of fact. Iā€™m not saying him has illicit gains, only showing a case of when somebody would hide their true assets. Just like Clarence Thomas lied about the presents.

            I know politics are now a touchy subject, but not everything is an attack.

            • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I have explained why youā€™re being down voted because you asked. If you refuse to accept ithe answer thatā€™s on you.

              • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                Ā·
                4 months ago

                Iā€™m explaining what is wrong with your reading. I was in good faith telling you. Iā€™m not sure why you chose to be do abrasive and closed minded, but Itā€™s on me for trying to be help.