Walzā€™s meager finances match his background as a small-town coach from Americaā€™s heartland.

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.

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

    Re: your article which you clearly skimmed

    Although it noted that this was not a determination that the Probate and Family Courtā€™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 ā€œthe 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 relationshipā€™s major source of wealth, as an asset arguably serves that end.ā€

    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 doesnā€™t undo decades of laws governing accounting and finances is not good enough.

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

      So now youā€™re back to saying that it is a legal definition. Youā€™re confusing me more. You initially said pensions are legally defined as income. Then you said that legal wasnā€™t the right word and even edited that out of your comment. Now youā€™re back to saying thereā€™s decades of laws. If you donā€™t know whether itā€™s legally defined as income then how am I supposed to know it?

      Everything Iā€™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 havenā€™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 canā€™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 doesnā€™t change decades of laws, but I canā€™t easily find these decades of laws and accounting rules. Most of what Iā€™m finding when trying to look talks about the accounting for managing the pension itself and the assets of the pension which obviously doesnā€™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 donā€™t trust you, but we are both strangers on the internet after all.

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

          Yeahā€¦that doesnā€™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 Iā€™m worth $500k more because of my pension. How does that have anything to do with the IRS?