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.

  • tills13@lemmy.world
    111·
    3 months ago

    It’s in his financial disclosures and it is literally a crime to lie in those. Why would he lie?

    • Railcar8095
      38·
      3 months ago

      Just in hypothetical, if you have illicit earning, you probably won’t declare them.

      Edit: this comment seems unpopular, but it has happened in the past. If somebody could tell me why it’s so wrong I would appreciate

      • AbsoluteChicagoDog
        5·
        3 months ago

        That’s not how logic works. You don’t get to make a claim then demand to be disproven. The burnden of proof is on you, and if the best you have is “idk seems like it could happen” then you have fuck all

        • Railcar8095
          12·
          3 months ago

          I’m not making a claim, .neither I asked to be disproven. just answering a situation in which it would happen.

          • AbsoluteChicagoDog
            3·
            3 months ago

            You indirectly claimed Tim has illicit money:

            if you have illicit earning, you probably won’t declare them

            Then asked to be disproven:

            somebody could tell me why it’s so wrong I would appreciate

            • Railcar8095
              11·
              3 months ago

              Just in hypothetical, if you have illicit earning, you probably won’t declare them.

              In the hypothetical case somebody has them. That’s not a claim of fact. I’m not saying him has illicit gains, only showing a case of when somebody would hide their true assets. Just like Clarence Thomas lied about the presents.

              I know politics are now a touchy subject, but not everything is an attack.

              • AbsoluteChicagoDog
                1·
                3 months ago

                I have explained why you’re being down voted because you asked. If you refuse to accept ithe answer that’s on you.

                • Railcar8095
                  11·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m explaining what is wrong with your reading. I was in good faith telling you. I’m not sure why you chose to be do abrasive and closed minded, but It’s on me for trying to be help.