Walz’s meager finances match his background as a small-town coach from America’s heartland.

The all-American working man demeanor of Tim Walz—Kamala Harris’s new running mate—looks like it’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 a report by the Wall Street Journal 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 the median figure for Americans his age (he’s 60), and even poorer than the average. One in 15 Americans is a millionaire, a recent UBS wealth report 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 $127,629 salary he receives as state governor, but he has elected not to receive the roughly $22,000 difference.

“Walz represents the stable middle class,” tax lawyer Megan Gorman, who authored a book on the personal finances of U.S. presidents, told the paper.

  • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    1·
    3 months ago

    It’s viewed as income because it’s income. It comes in 1-2 times a month as a relatively modest salary. It’s not an asset because you don’t have it in your possession. You can’t use it or leverage it in its entirety, to treat it as your asset would be wildly unfair and inaccurate as it can be taken away before it has paid out - that can’t happen with an asset. There are ways to lose your pension. If you give me stocks or money into my account you can’t take it back barring criminal action or a civil court ruling related to it.

    Your description of net worth is correct but pensions are not an asset. View it how you want, legally it is not an asset and it isn’t treated as one. Every year you’re getting a fraction of it, and that fraction is further spread out over 12 or 24 installments, and you can potentially lose the remainder. That’s not an asset any more than your current job is.

    TL;DR: a pension is a job you get paid to do but you don’t actually have to go to work.

    • fadedmaster@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      Can you provide a source corroborating “legally it is not an asset?”

      Here’s a source with case precedent that contradicts that in Massachusetts (appeals court vacated a decision to consider a pension as income): https://www.fitchlp.com/blog/2021/11/should-a-pension-be-considered-an-asset-or-a-source-of-income/

      So this might be a thing that varies from State to State. And it might also depend upon the type of pension. Some pensions you can take a lump sum. It’s not always a fixed income as you stated. It sounds like you might know more than me on this subject, but I’m not finding separate resources that fully agree with you. Most sources seem to indicate it could be considered an asset or it could be considered income.

      • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        1·
        3 months ago

        If you take a pension as a lump sum then yes it is an asset because the entirety of it is in your possession. They did not do that, so it’s not an asset/part of their net worth. It’s not in their possession.

        I have explained this a dozen different ways. Your definitions do not matter. It is a source of income which is explicitly listed in this article. Your income is not an asset until the money from the income is in your possession. The income stream is not a part of your net worth. Your take home pay from work is not an asset. Social security is not an asset. Pensions paying out over time are not an asset. Cash in your account is an asset. Retirement accounts are an asset. Your vehicle or home (if you own part of them or outright) are assets.

        Ask any American accountant.

        • fadedmaster@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          I missed this commment. Sorry. Also, I have talked to accountants and financial advisors that work with our union. I think because a lump sum is an option they all treat it as an asset when discussing net worth.

          And I’ve mentioned several times that I understand income is not an asset. I have also mentioned several times that the pension was treated by other professional financial advisors and accountants as an asset (probably due to the lump sum option). I’m sure its treated differently if they don’t take the lump sum.

          I get that if you are drawing on a pension and didn’t take the lump sum that it would be income and thus not an asset. What isn’t so clear to me is whether a pension that you are not drawing on yet but offers an option of a lump sum can be considered an asset for the purposes of calculating net worth.

          Edit: I appreciate you taking the time to explain some of this. Might I suggest though that you take a little more care in how you talk to people? You’re coming off very rude. Maybe that’s just me reading into what you’re saying, but if someone spoke to me like this in person or via email, I’d walk away.

      • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        1·
        3 months ago

        Re: your article which you clearly skimmed

        Although it noted that this was not a determination that the Probate and Family Court’s decision was wrong, the Appeals Court did explain that further analysis was needed given that considering the pension as income (1) resulted in the Wife receiving less of the pension than if it were an asset; (2) restricted the Wife personally since alimony would terminate upon her remarriage or cohabitation; (3) created greater economic uncertainty for the Wife in comparison to the Husband; and (4) that “the Supreme Judicial Court has often encouraged structuring divorces so as to avoid continued strife and uncertainty between the parties. [Citations omitted]. Treating the pension, the relationship’s major source of wealth, as an asset arguably serves that end.”

        They are making a functional argument that does not change the fact that pensions are treated as income, but instead arguing in this case it hurts the aggrieved party by cutting them off from something they are entitled to and even goes so far as to say the lower court ruling was not incorrect. A single narrow lane case that doesn’t undo decades of laws governing accounting and finances is not good enough.

        • fadedmaster@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          So now you’re back to saying that it is a legal definition. You’re confusing me more. You initially said pensions are legally defined as income. Then you said that legal wasn’t the right word and even edited that out of your comment. Now you’re back to saying there’s decades of laws. If you don’t know whether it’s legally defined as income then how am I supposed to know it?

          Everything I’m finding online seems to indicate it can be viewed one way or another depending upon opinion and whether a lump sum option is available. You seem to be saying its always income? You haven’t clarified the lump sum option and how a pension with that option should be viewed from your opinion. And from an, albeit quick, look online I can’t find legal resources that indicate it is a hard rule. Even the link I provided and even the details you highlighted from that do not say its always a hard rule that all pensions are always income and never an asset.

          I know one case doesn’t change decades of laws, but I can’t easily find these decades of laws and accounting rules. Most of what I’m finding when trying to look talks about the accounting for managing the pension itself and the assets of the pension which obviously doesn’t answer the question at hand.

          So all of that said, do you have a resource you can point me to in order to help educate myself in the legal and accounting rules for how to treat pensions for individual finance and not something from the corporate finance side? Not that I don’t trust you, but we are both strangers on the internet after all.

            • fadedmaster@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              Yeah…that doesn’t answer my question. That only answers how the IRS treats income from the pension.

              You can derive income from assets can you not? Am I misunderstanding assets? I would view rental property as an asset and you can get income from that. I would view a 401k as an asset and you can get income from that.

              If I say I’m with $500k more because of my pension. How does that have anything to do with the IRS?