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.
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.