- Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota is a man of relatively modest means, according to financial disclosures.
- In fact, he doesn’t own a single stock.
- Like other members of Congress, Walz even slept in his Capitol Hill office for some time.
dude doesn’t give a fuck about the shareholders 😮 where are my pearls?
“oh no, he wont care if my stocks fall” - finance bros, probably
Damn if a triple digit income is living relatively modestly I’m the fucking Buddha.
Must say though, the media is doing an ok job of selling me on this pick.
POV: you’re on disability benefits, given 8k per year, and the government/ruling class treats you as if you’re stealing money and lazy
Also the ruling class/govt: Triple digit salary is relatively modest
False equivalence. One is moderately paid and the other should be paid and treated better. Life isn’t a zero sum game and we can work together to make the world better for all.
well none of the politicians, democrats uncluded, have made any real effort to increase disability benefits in the past 2 decades. despite disabled people being homeless en masse
Isn’t triple digit from $100 to $999? As in composed of numbers made up of three digits. That would be poverty level.
Current congressional and VP salaries are described as “6 figs” or “6 figure salary” as far as I’ve heard.
It’s still good but they generally have to keep two residences: one on their state and one in/near DC. That’s not cheap.
Me neither, Tim. Never have, never plan to buy any. If somehow I inherit some stock, I won’t know what to do with it.
Do you have a retirement account like a 401k or IRA? That’s almost certainly invested in stock.
I do (2 in fact) and they’re locked in. I can’t do anything with them or to them except add more money (that I don’t have).
I’d like to know who made the rule that RRSPs, 401Ks, etc MUST be invested in the stock market instead of GICs or other forms of investment. Because if I had a choice I wouldn’t have one red cent in stocks.
MUST be invested in the stock market
You can invest in bonds instead if you want to. Less risk, less reward.
I’m in my 30s so my investment portfolio is around 90% stocks and 10% bonds at the moment.
If you have a 401k, HSA, or other common financial accounts offered by employers, you most likely have money in the stock market. Usually it’s an indexed mutual fund of some kind.
I haven’t read the article, but usually when people like this don’t have any stocks, it’s to avoid a conflict of interest, but they do potentially own something like a whole market etf that’s being managed by a 3rd party. Something like XGRO
That varies though. Some really do have nothing.
Edit: And while it seems like in this case it’s true to the intent, technically, owning an ETF share isn’t owning a stock. You don’t own the underlying stocks with ETFs
Yeah, I don’t own stocks. I just have a 401k and shares of VTI, VXUS, and VOO in my IRA and traditional brokerage. But I don’t own stocks!
To be honest though, I don’t see a problem (or at least as big of a problem) with politicians owning total market index funds.
Honestly? That makes me really concerned about his long term wellbeing and raises a few orange flags for how he can be compromised. Owning individual stocks is very questionable. Investing heavily in a mutual fund or some other managed portfolio is common sense for anyone win a position where retirement is an option.
But also? Fuck yeah.
Things like mutual funds, IRAs, etc, are not considered securities and are not disclosed on economic interest disclosure forms. That is true for most government disclosures, including in Minnesota. Minnesota only requires disclosing directly held securities, like stocks, with a certain value. E.g., if you own $10,000 in Apple stock, that needs to be disclosed, but owning $10,000 in mutual funds shares does not.
