• His disclosures, both from his final year in Congress and his time as Minnesota governor, also show no mutual funds, bonds, private equities, or other securities.
  • No book deals or speaking fees or crypto or racehorse interests.
  • Not even real estate. The couple sold their Mankato, Minnesota, home after moving into the governor’s mansion, for below the $315k asking price).
  • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m not saying that he’s poor.

    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?

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.