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.
But pension typically isnāt included in net worth unless itās unspent money, and given how small the average public school teacherās pension is in comparison to their expenses, wouldnāt you agree it makes little sense to say his pension automatically should be added to his net worth?
A couple grand a month is what I expect a retired teacher to get for their pension. And a couple grand a month is what I expect a retired teacher to spend on rent/mortgage + food + other expenses.
My point wasnāt that it makes a big difference (I actually acknowledged that in my comment).
But what was your point, if spent pension money isnāt considered a part of net income? If youāre a retired private sector CEO, youāre probably not spending your entire pension or even most of it. If youāre a retired teacher, you probably are.
My point was that leaving details out gives people an excuse to dismiss the entire point of the article. I was looking at it from the perspective of changing and winning minds. People will look for any way to resist changing their minds.
deleted by creator
Nothing is the issue. I donāt want something extra. Iām trying to gain understanding through conversation. Repeating to me that income isnāt part of net worth doesnāt help me understand. I have done some quick reading and it appears you can indeed include your pension in your net worth calculations. It isnāt necessarily just income. Seems different financial advisors handle pensions differently. Just like with a house. Some will include the value of a house in net worth, some wonāt because the value of the home is not liquid.
Either way that wasnāt my original point. My original point was that the upper comment never said that including pension in net worth would turn him into a billionaire. And I was also trying to make the point that a complete picture should be provided so that some people do not simply dismiss the article entirely for one missing detail (as people will and often do use any excuse they can to change their mind).
I hope that clears my position a little. Iām not trying to argue despite what you and others might think.
deleted by creator
I guess Iām just surprised that so many people donāt view a pension as an asset and only view it as income. After the conversations here I did some reading and it looks like thereās not a consensus on whether to include a pension in net worth calculations. That being said there isnāt a consensus about including home value in net worth calculations either.
I suppose my question would be how do you define net worth? Would you agree with the other user who seems to define it as assets that can be left to survivors minus debt?
I have always thought of net worth as total assets minus total obligations/debts and would view a pension as an asset.
deleted by creator