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·
    4 months ago

    Sure. But I guess Iā€™m just thinking that a retirement account (be it a Roth, pension, etc) has a cash value that should be a part of oneā€™s net worth. Just because it hasnā€™t been cashed out yet doesnā€™t mean it has no value.

    Just as I would include shares of a company that someone owns but hasnā€™t sold as a part of their net worth.

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      Ā·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      IRAs and other retirements savings can inherited if the person dies before or after they retire. Pensions can sometime be collected by surviving spouses, but are generally something you only get if you live long enough to receive them and they are not inherited.

      The former is something you have (wealth), the latter is something you will get (future income). Kind of like the difference between the value of those shares now and what they could be worth in the future.

      • fadedmaster@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        Ā·
        4 months ago

        So you define wealth as only that which you can leave to survivors? That makes sense. I did some reading and it appears including pension in net worth calculations is something that varies among financial advisors. Some donā€™t even include the value of your home since you canā€™t readily access the value of that.

        Iā€™ve always thought of net worth as total assets minus total obligations/debts. And I view a pension as an asset. But given how youā€™re defining wealth, that makes sense why you would opt not to include a pension in net worth calculations.