It has recently been determined that some leader’s around the world are paid more than others.

What is a surprise is that at face value some leader’s are paid disproportionately to their country’s financial health.

This “health” can largely be determined by the GDP of a country adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity.

There was a recent NZ Herald article that had undertones attacking what our leader, and politicians are paid, plus an editorial by Fran O’Sullivan.

However, what I found is the following:

What I found interesting is New Zealand’s leader is paid substantially more than Australia’s, and furthemore, that Australia’s PPP is less than New Zealand’s.  This dispells the myth that Australia is a better place to live. Yes, salaries are higher, but overall their is less wealth per person.

However, New Zealand is on par with the UK, and compared to richer countries our leader’s are paid substantially less.

Poor old Bolivia however, their leader is basically doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

I may extend this little investigation to include the minimum wage as a ratio as well.  Might be too hard with limited resources.

John Key can rest assured that he is not really all that overpaid as some people say.

I do however agree with Fran O’Sullivan’s point that our politicians and leader should be paid based on economic performance of the country.

My formula is quite simple. 2/3 of their salary is paid as normal. 1/3 is paid upon meeting agreed fiscal and social targets.  If they exceed the targets by say 20%, they get a further 1/3 bonus.

Obviously with so many politicians being completely out of touch with private sector, it is unlikely they will every agree to something like this.  They may actually have to perform for a change.