politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Even then he should have some savings. Is he never going to buy anything expensive or have some emergency he needs to pay to fix? Living paycheck to paycheck isn't great even if the paycheck is actually a pension payment.
The disclosure says they sold their house for 300k before moving into the governors mansion.
Having 3 pensions (army +teacher+congress) that I would guess net around 100k/yr, 300k in the bank and a 125k/yr governor salary puts you in a pretty good spot in the US economic system. He might even have a 4th governor pension coming, and if he gets the VP spot, a 5th.
Even without the 300k or the governor's job, it's pretty easy to get 6 figure loans when you have a guaranteed 100kish coming in each year.
I'd say his financial state is very, very healthy.
I'm not saying that he's poor. I'm saying that if he has significant savings (and he does) then they should be invested in something. There's a good reason why wealthy people don't keep their money in a savings account.
Lol. The man has 300k in the bank and likely 227k/yr in income, half of which is guaranteed, and you refer to him as "not poor." How kind of you to consider an American with better finances than maybe 230 million other Americans as "not poor."
The reason people invest is to have enough steady income to fund their lifestyles. It looks like his family has already done that entirely through pensions. Why should he take even minimal risk to gain something that he clearly doesn't want or need?
I think most of the stock market would cease to exist if every American had a 100k/yr pensions like Governor walz does. In fact, I know this is true, because 401k were designed to kill pensions in order to force more people into the stock market, making rich people richer.
Either way, sometimes people with "plenty" don't care about "plenty more." Man was already handing out full size chocolate bars and hot cocoa to trick or treaters. What else could he want?
227k/yr is an upper-middle class income. It's about as much as a doctor in a relatively low-paid specialty earns, and while it is enough to live comfortably and securely while saving for the future, it isn't enough to never have to think about money again.
What I've been saying is that even if Walz doesn't want more money than he already has, he should still have savings and he should invest those savings to avoid having them gradually become worthless because of inflation. Inflation means a guaranteed loss for those unwilling to take a even a minimal risk. There's a difference between being modest and being wasteful. Taking that guaranteed loss rather than that minimal risk is wasteful.
You are absolutely disconnected from the average American life if you think 227k/year, 300k in the bank, and at least 100k/yr of GUARENTEED INCOME is an amount of money where you need to worry about living comfortably in Minnisota.
Should he park his 300k in some low yield bonds? Sure. That might make him 10k/yr instead of the 3k/yr he's likely making in a savings account.
Is the amount of money he's "losing" matter when he clearly has all of his families needs met long term matter with zero risk? No.
I have been poor enough to be on government assistance and I'm currently in the upper middle class myself, although I don't have as much money as Walz. I know that his income is enough to live comfortably, and if you reread my last post then you will see that I explicitly said so. But what if he wants to buy his children a house, or pay for his grandchildren to go to college debt-free? He isn't paid enough to do that without having to save first. (I don't actually know his family situation but I think my general point stands.) Even if he doesn't want to do any of that, he could at least donate the money to charity.
In short, is he going to end up broke because he hasn't invested his savings? No, definitely not. Is wasting money a good look for someone who wants to be Vice President? Also no.
It's a matter of perspective.
From one perspective, him not actively using his money to make more money is wasting it. From this perspective, he's going to seem financially illiterate.
From another perspective, it's simply him being lazy or incompetent. This also isn't a good look.
But, there's another perspective to consider: it's him putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to policy. A lot of voters are tired of seeing politicians abandoning their positions in favor of personal gain. If Walz has no investments, he's in a better position to be unbiased than somebody who would benefit from the financial growth of Boeing, Shell, or some big tech company. Unless he's corrupt enough to succumb to bribery (legal or otherwise), he has nothing to gain by abusing a position of authority to undermine environmental protections, workers' rights, consumer protections, etc.
Maybe he doesn't want to be wealthy but only wants to live comfortably? It's not a common way of living, but it's far from unimaginable.
If someone doesn't intend to live beyond reasonable means and has an emergency fund and income that will last until they die, they don't need to invest in anything. Money doesn't follow you into the grave, and wealth accumulation ror the sake of wealth accumulation benefits nobody.
Investment isn't necessarily about the accumulation of wealth. You need $1.33 today to have the same purchasing power you had with $1.00 ten years ago, so unless your total return on investment has been 33% or more over the last ten years, you have effectively lost money. You could get that rate of return with very low-risk investments like Treasury bonds.
But, again, why bother throwing away his good image of being a politician without anything incentivizing self-interests when he's already set for life? If the guy lives another 25 years, and assuming the value of his $200k/year pension stays the same while the purchasing power of it is reduced to 1/1.33^2.5^ (or about 50%), he effectively gets the equivalent of $100k a year in today's money. That's still going to be plenty to live comfortably.