The all-American working man demeanor of Tim WalzāKamala Harrisās new running mateālooks like itās 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 (heās 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.
āWalz 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.
Nitpicking his income stream - which is not his net worth - serves no point here. Youāre doing a āwell AKSHOOALEEā that is not only irrelevant but in service ofā¦what? Whatās the point youāre making?
It helps me. I was questioning either the facts or his intelligence, as it doesnāt seem like he has enough money to buy/rent a house when he leaves the governors mansion with no income. I was wondering if he gets his governor pay for life or somethingā¦ I had forgot about other pensions. Scolding someone for giving information you didnāt want is how we got Donald trumpā¦
You (and the person I was responding to) didnāt ask anything, you are making an assertion and implied he/the article is being deceptive. That is not the same thing.
That Trump comment is so forced and makes no damn sense. We got Trump because people canāt ask questions (which again you didnāt even do)? Give me a break. What does that even mean?
At no point did anyone say the article was deceptive, just that it didnāt dive very deep into the pension. Probably the writer just doesnāt know much about them. Which is sad. Journalists used to be allowed the time to learn up on things for an article. So you are defending the article from a perceived complaint that no one made. You just donāt want to hear anything bad about the article you liked. Just like trump was never told he did anything wrong while growing up. That is the connection. Donāt put you head in the sand, the article missed some useful detail, someone pointed it out. That is all that happened here.
Ok youāre right have a good rest of your weekend
Itās a different retirement method than the average American that has to save up a shit ton in 401k assets.
Yes but a pension is not part of net worth and a 401k is.
Sure, but when youāre taking about Americans at retirement age, net worth is important because it allows you to retire comfortably. Thatās why they tie together in most folks mind instead of focusing on pure income or net worth. Heās got a reason to have a lower net worth and still be comfortable.
Ok?
So you understand why the framing is valuable but want to be a pisser about it anyway?
The discussion is about net worth and the article explicitly states their annual income which includes the pension. I donāt understand the issue. Whatās not being included? Whatās being omitted? What is the problem? What do you want to see differently?
The article talks about nest eggs and compares him to people in his age group while obliquely talking about his income. Itās relatable to retirement planning and thatās why pensions are important. Theyāre explicitly income you donāt have to work for and a form of building a nest eggs. Itās important to talk about them in this context.
This has shifted to a clearly bad faith or at least wildly stubborn argument. All of the info is presentend clear as day including income. There is nothing nefarious happening. You are being ridiculous.