Tim Walz’s net worth is less than the average American’s
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.
Oh you’re right 2 teachers’ pensions basically makes them Bezos and Musk. Same playing field.
That isn't what the parent comment stated. If I had a pension I'd include it in my net worth. It should be included if it wasn't. Missing something like a retirement account or pension (most people's highest value asset) will just allow people to dismiss these figures (regardless of how little the impact would be).
Edit: based upon replies it looks like I wasn't clear in my comment. I'm not saying that including the pension changes the point of the article. But by leaving information out it might give some people an excuse to dismiss the whole thing.
You’re missing the forest for the trees here.
And who lists income streams in their net worth?
Can you explain?
I realize the point of the article is that he isn't some wealthy elite like the vast majoring of politicians. I think if one wishes to drive this point to everyone, one should not leave out details that would allow someone to dismiss it entirely no matter how wrong they would be for dismissing it.
I'm not saying it should be dismissed. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that. I'm looking at it from the perspective of trying to change or win minds. And I think it's best to include a more complete picture even if the additional details do not change the picture much if at all.
They said his net worth. You’re upset about not talking about his pension. You don’t list your pension in your net worth, just like you don’t list your take home pay in your net worth. Your net worth is the total after adding up your total assets and subtracting your debts/obligations.
If this is new information to you then I apologize for my tone in the other comments. The point is there is nothing omitted or neglected. This number is accurate as-is.
I'm not upset. The other commentor might be. But I'm not.
I guess I always thought you included retirement accounts in net worth because they carry a cash value even if it hasn't been cashed out yet. Just like you would include shares in a company in someone's net worth even if they hadn't sold the shares.
Perhaps pensions are slightly different. Everyone I work with who opted for the pension over a 401k includes their pension in their net worth and, to my understanding, so do the financial planners that work with the Union.
A pension is not a retirement account, it’s an income stream. It’s completely different from 401k’s.
It’s not an investment account, it’s payment. The institution keeps paying you at regular intervals after you’ve left. As an income stream it is not part of your net worth, just like folks’ hourly wages/salary are not part of their net worth. Social security is another example - not net worth, not an investment account, but an income stream delivered at regular intervals.
The significance is that he doesn't control how his pension is funded. It's not like he has a vested interest in one company succeeding by having a bunch of stock there, and he's been in politics since the aughts. It's refreshing when compared to other congressmen
Oh I agree completely. The problem is that when talking about this stuff in the scope of changing minds, if you neglect information people too easily dismiss it.
No you don’t agree completely. Your income =/= your net worth. If you ask me my net worth I don’t include my salary or anything. It’s the total net worth of my assets. That’s literally all it is. There is nothing being neglected here.
That’s like asking me my take home pay and claiming I was being opaque about it when I didn’t give you my monthly expenses. You asked about my income.
I agree to your last comment about it being refreshing that he's not some elite like so many others. Sorry that wasn't clear.
But pension typically isn't included in net worth unless it's unspent money, and given how small the average public school teacher's pension is in comparison to their expenses, wouldn't 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 wasn't that it makes a big difference (I actually acknowledged that in my comment).
But what was your point, if spent pension money isn't considered a part of net income? If you're a retired private sector CEO, you're probably not spending your entire pension or even most of it. If you're 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.
The article explicitly states their annual income, which would include their pensions. As we have said many times now income is not part of net worth. Either way, the income is stated in this article. What is missing that you want? What’s the issue?
Nothing is the issue. I don't want something extra. I'm trying to gain understanding through conversation. Repeating to me that income isn't part of net worth doesn't help me understand. I have done some quick reading and it appears you can indeed include your pension in your net worth calculations. It isn't 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 won't because the value of the home is not liquid.
Either way that wasn't 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. I'm not trying to argue despite what you and others might think.
What is unclear that you would like someone to explain? That’s probably a more productive question on my part.
I guess I'm just surprised that so many people don't view a pension as an asset and only view it as income. After the conversations here I did some reading and it looks like there's not a consensus on whether to include a pension in net worth calculations. That being said there isn't 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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: your article which you clearly skimmed
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.
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 I'm just thinking that a retirement account (be it a Roth, pension, etc) has a cash value that should be a part of one's net worth. Just because it hasn't been cashed out yet doesn't mean it has no value.
Just as I would include shares of a company that someone owns but hasn't 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 don't even include the value of your home since you can't readily access the value of that.
I've always thought of net worth as total assets minus total obligations/debts. And I view a pension as an asset. But given how you're defining wealth, that makes sense why you would opt not to include a pension in net worth calculations.
Then it’s calculated in as his net worth. The fact that it’s a pension doesn’t change anything. He could’ve won the lottery, it’s still calculated in his net worth the moment the money is in his hands.
2 teachers, military and Congress. I'm not saying they're billionaires, or even that they're closer to one than normal.
Nitpicking his income stream - which is not his net worth - serves no point here. You’re doing a “well AKSHOOALEE” that is not only irrelevant but in service of…what? What’s the point you’re making?
It's a different retirement method than the average American that has to save up a shit ton in 401k assets.
Yes but a pension is not part of net worth and a 401k is.
Sure, but when you're taking about Americans at retirement age, net worth is important because it allows you to retire comfortably. That's why they tie together in most folks mind instead of focusing on pure income or net worth. He's got a reason to have a lower net worth and still be comfortable.
Ok?
So you understand why the framing is valuable but want to be a pisser about it anyway?
The discussion is about net worth and the article explicitly states their annual income which includes the pension. I don’t understand the issue. What’s not being included? What’s being omitted? What is the problem? What do you want to see differently?
The article talks about nest eggs and compares him to people in his age group while obliquely talking about his income. It's relatable to retirement planning and that's why pensions are important. They're explicitly income you don't have to work for and a form of building a nest eggs. It's important to talk about them in this context.
This has shifted to a clearly bad faith or at least wildly stubborn argument. All of the info is presentend clear as day including income. There is nothing nefarious happening. You are being ridiculous.
Nobody said it was nefarious. You're the one injecting the tone.
Then what the fuck is the problem? Jesus Christ dude. I’m out.
It helps me. I was questioning either the facts or his intelligence, as it doesn't seem like he has enough money to buy/rent a house when he leaves the governors mansion with no income. I was wondering if he gets his governor pay for life or something... I had forgot about other pensions. Scolding someone for giving information you didn't want is how we got Donald trump...
You (and the person I was responding to) didn’t ask anything, you are making an assertion and implied he/the article is being deceptive. That is not the same thing.
That Trump comment is so forced and makes no damn sense. We got Trump because people can’t ask questions (which again you didn’t even do)? Give me a break. What does that even mean?
At no point did anyone say the article was deceptive, just that it didn't dive very deep into the pension. Probably the writer just doesn't know much about them. Which is sad. Journalists used to be allowed the time to learn up on things for an article. So you are defending the article from a perceived complaint that no one made. You just don't want to hear anything bad about the article you liked. Just like trump was never told he did anything wrong while growing up. That is the connection. Don't put you head in the sand, the article missed some useful detail, someone pointed it out. That is all that happened here.
Ok you’re right have a good rest of your weekend