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.
The argument I’ve heard from my parents is why should I pay for public healthcare when I can afford my own private healthcare.
Which is so incredibly tone deaf
“Dad, can you afford to burn $100? Why don’t you go it then?”
Not the same of curse, they would probably save more than $100 dollars a month with public healthcare.
Not just tone deaf, dumb as fuck.
I’ve had the same argument with my parents and they still won’t admit that they’re still “paying for everyone else’s healthcare” via insurance but also paying insurance CEO’s paychecks on top of that.
“Why should I take care of my aging parents when I can take care of myself” is the appropriate response to that.
That’s THE Boomer take of all Boomer takes. Big “fuck you, I got mine” energy. And it’s everything that’s wrong with this country.
Because it’s cheaper than paying for your own private healthcare
Well healthcare up here in Canada is kinda fucked up unless your issue is critical. Their point was that they want to be able to skip the line because they are wealthy instead of trying to fix the system. Still idiotic.
EVERY argument I have heard against public healthcare has been tone deaf, statistically incorrect, and driven by gut feelings over kindergarten levels of economic understanding.
In a world of perfect understanding, public healthcare would be a given.
Society is objectively better when everyone is happy and healthy.
Society is objectively better when the needs of the most struggling are addressed first.
Also: regressives have no platform when everything right now is good.
How can they call back to a mythical past when their needs are met better in the present?