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.
Future pension payments are income, not net worth.
Would that not depend upon the pension? In my experience (albeit limited) some pensions have a cash value and you may take a lump sum upon retirement.
If he already received the lump sum then it would be part of his current wealth.
Sure. But I guess Iām just thinking that a retirement account (be it a Roth, pension, etc) has a cash value that should be a part of oneās net worth. Just because it hasnāt been cashed out yet doesnāt mean it has no value.
Just as I would include shares of a company that someone owns but hasnāt sold as a part of their net worth.
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.
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 donāt even include the value of your home since you canāt readily access the value of that.
Iāve always thought of net worth as total assets minus total obligations/debts. And I view a pension as an asset. But given how youāre defining wealth, that makes sense why you would opt not to include a pension in net worth calculations.
deleted by creator