The pettiness of the board conservatives is astounding.
Personal finances of Walz and Vance show stark differences
- Thread starter Sullivan
- Start date
It's as if the average D on this board hasn't ever had a finance class.
Would you rather have a leader who has a track record of personal financial success (Vance v Walz), starting at the very bottom. or a leader who has trouble with their own finances?
Yeah, BUT Trump... This is about Walz and Vance. We all know that Trump is only good at one thing, and that's getting stupid people to give him money or loan him money.
Perhaps he has that covered with a LTC policy. Perhaps not. There's not enough info in a financial disclosure form to know. You might make assumptions, but you're only guessing.
Again what makes you think he's having trouble with his own finances? Just cause he's not rich?
I'd like to remind you that you took issue with me pointing out how petty the board conservatives are acting.
Your response here is a little petty.
Well, that's the whole philosophy behind term policies. You get them to cover what needs covering, and those needs decline as life changes.
Their desire to tear down his character with weird assumptions.
Totally understand the value of the stack, but that's "how to use insurance for dummies" level shit.
This guy, from what we can see, is going to work until the day he dies, assuming they do the "the wife's retired" standard old couple shit.
So basically because he's not rich. Got it. So if we get a guy who's got a few million dollars he's an elitist, but if we get someone who has less money he's a loser.
He has a pension that pays him the rest of his life. He's doing fine.
Personally I'd rather have a guy who lives in a world limited by money than someone like Vance or Trump who doesn't live in that world. We don't need more people worried about the plight of the wealthy, we need more people worried about the plight of those who arn't wealthy.
It isn't about being rich, it's about someone thinking they have great ideas when their personal production is shit.
I'm not trying to have the guy that goes 1 for 10 tell me how to play baseball.
* and I'm sure as shit nor going to let someone try and tell me he is "good".
No.
But you could just be a normal dude and post something that says "that's not accurate" with proof.
Of course not, because you're full of shit and you know it.
Why won't you answer the questions I posed about his finances?
His personal production??? He was a teacher. You can be the best hardest working teacher in the world and you are still pretty limited in how much money you can make. It's not famously a job that provides high pay.
This is entirely about him not being rich. You think rich people are inherently superior people with more right to rule.
He hasn't been a teacher for 20 years.
Hey bud, I'm a poor soul. I was born into a family that used food stamps and went to the food bank to get government cheese and meats. I grew up thinking "budding" ham was a high end. I don't have any negative view of poor people, I like people who start at x and end up at x+, no matter what base you associate "x" with.
And then he went into politics. . . where he just did his politician job and didn't take advantage of his position to profit himself.
So you are mad that he wasn't a corrupt politician now??
This is what the wealthy on the right feed on. Dumbasses that are too stupid to know they are being played.
But you are going to vote for a president who started with X+ and ended with X. Trump could have put all his inheritance in an S&P500 fund and made more money than he has now.
What calculation are you using to obtain cash value less than 1 million for the four individual pensions?
( Using some assumptions based on known facts the pensions should be in the range of 72k DoD, 55k (Congress) 20k( him state) 20k ( her state ) = 167k annually
.
I pullwd that from the estimated 800k pension plus thr one accounted for from the article, assuming that was the entirety of his government.
I think I'm talking total value and you are looking yearly income.
So he's doing just fine, he's got a 6 figure income for the rest of his life before you even account for social security which he'll be eligible for relatively soon and you are mad that he didn't run the numbers up on "personal wealth"??
I mean if you figure a 10% rate of return in the stock market and the 167k per year that was quoted (I have no idea how accurate that is, I'm just going by what someone else posted) you figure that 167k per year is worth about $1,670,000 just in cash value. And he gets that for the rest of his life no matter if the market goes up or down so in a way it's better than having 1.67 million in the stock market.
How many years do you think a pension that has a total of a million dollars gets drained at 160k?
*And that's IF he gets this mythical 800k the op gave him credit for.
You do realize that's all his money for the rest of his life.
Are these pensions that are limited or are they paid out for the rest of his life regardless? Because they are all government pensions either by the state or the fed. So I'm guessing he gets them regardless.
Well a pension never gets drained, except when the recipient dies.
I don't have a pension. Does the 165k figure seem accurate for a pension worth a mill?
You obviously don't understand the difference between a pension and a 401K. Pensions are annuities that pay for life.
You're ignorant.
I'd rather have someone who is content to live and serve within modest means than an grifter who cheats others to fund an excessive and lavish lifestyle, but that's just me.
Community Notes points out that this is a massive W for Walz. Sorry, elitists who want more government corruption:
Tim Walz has previously expressed in congress that he staunchly believes that owning stocks or making large investments as a politician leads to conflict of interest. He also sponsored STOCK act.https://porter.house.gov/uploadedfiles/stockact2.0summaryfinal.pdfhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/2038https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Acthttps://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/2038/all-actionshttps://www.c-span.org/video/?304020-1/senate-session
That is probably a bit low, but it depends on assumptions as to interest rate & when the person is eligible to start drawing. As a quick example, I think he's 60; assume he can start drawing in 5 years, when he turns 65. At that point, his life expectancy would be about 17 years, so at $165k annual he'd be getting $13,750 per month for 204 months. At 6 percent, the current value of that cash flow stream would be about $1.3 million. If you use the $800k mentioned in the original article, with the same assumptions as above it would be about $8450 per month, or about $100k per year.
That's not wealthy by any means, but $100k per year (plus SS benefits that are probably another $25k), he's not going to be eating dog food in his retirement.
Last edited:
So what I take from all this banter is Walz is a pretty normal dude who's reached a level in politics that is usually graced by privileged silver spoon babies and/or people who chose to chase the almighty dollar above all else in life.
He gets his pension every month regardless of whether he lives an addition year or 100 years. That's the benefit of a pension, they never run out.
And the rough dollar amount per month of a million dollar pension? The numbers im coming up with and the numbers provided above are drastically different. A federal.pension may pay higher than any calculations I can find.
