@#152. If your accountant is the owner of his business, then he will often be doing work that is not chargeable. Doing his own GST returns, attending conferences and training, keeping up with relevant legislation etc. He will also have rent, staff charges, marketing etc, which will bring his take home pay to far less than $120 per hour worked. Also, as a business owner he would have taken some risk. Some of his own capital would have been invested in a business, and he would have no guarantee that he would actually get this back, let alone build on it. Risk begetting reward is the basis of true entrepreneurial capitalism (as opposed to global corporation-based capitalism dominant in the world today). In contrast, those on fixed salaries such as CEOs of mega-corporations take no risks at all. When they ruined the worlds economy through their own shortsighted greed, they got golden handshakes, not jail time.

Having said that, Key does take some risks every 3 years, in that he may not be re-elected, and his salary is actually quite low compared with some overpaid public servants and chief executives. These are the real fat-cat parasites we need to concentrate on, not the politicians.

and that why we pay so much tax

@CP: "John Key is one of the world's best-paid leaders when his income is compared with his country's wealth, according to a report."

"Mr Key earns $393,000 a year while New Zealand's GDP per capita is $46,683, putting us 22nd out of 30 OECD countries, according to the New Zealand Institute"

Try again. The second para compares his income to the GDP and then says it puts us 22nd out of 30 OECD countries. The article, by its wording, implies that the ratio is 22nd, while the economist article clearly shows it as being 6th (not 5th as the article states).

If the article had stated that NZ's per capita GDP puts us 22nd, and then spoke of the PM's income, it would have been clearer.

The inconsistency is in the wording in the article.

@ RICKO #42

Its about the fact that until the recent election, the country was being run by an unelected foreigner who has contributed, under his own and the previous goverment (don't get me started on tony blair) to the current perilous economic situation in the UK.

Been here two years and John Key seems like a good sort. Gives a straight answer to straight question which is unusual in politics.

Worry more about the job he is doing than what he is getting paid.

@ Matty 125

I agree with you totally but it's unreasoable to assume he's always working, I bet he does get some sleep ;-)

I did a little exercise yesterday and guessed he would be at work (or as they say, “be on deck”) a little bit more than me, and I work on avg, 60 hrs a week. If we assume he works 80 hours a week and gets 4 weeks paid annual leave he’s “on deck” 3840 hours a year. That works out to about $102.34 / hour. A little bet less than the $120.00 / hr (+ GST) my accountant charges me to do my annual accounts, assuming he can fit you in as he only works 4 days a week!

I think you ... and also PM Key ("Key dismisses 'best-paid' label" - today's Dominion Post) have misunderstood the article, Real Dude(#148).

The article is not relating the prime minister's salary to New Zealand's total GDP ... and it is not comparing the USA president's salary to the total GDP of the USA ... it is comparing the proportionate share of the country's earnings (wealth) which is annually transferred to the prime minister/president with what is transferred to the average (or maybe the mean) individual income earner.

In a sense, it is portraying the income gap ... but not high-lighting the very wide gap between the average person and the corporate technocrats who earn very, very high remuneration, even in comparison with the political leaders.

We are also overlooking that in New Zealand, this " income gap " has recently been widened and made more inequitable by the National government's tax cuts in the Budget which so much advantage high income earners, and the increased GST which disadvantages lower income earners.

Peanut #135 has made a valid point and I was in debate with friends with only a month or two ago.

For two tiny islands and a tiny population New Zealand has an insane amount of MPs. In some cases, compared to other democracies we have DOUBLE the MPs per head.

Do I think our PM gets paid too much? – NO, it’s a thankless job. Do I think we have too many MPs – YES far too many for a tiny population and a tiny country that you can fly the length of in no time at all.

Halving our MPs would save the country 10s of millions of dollars in wages (and perks) a year

Gravey - you are probably the only one wondering because everyone else has been able to read and understand the article, and indeed the sentences you wonder about. Our GDP per capita is 22nd out of 30. Perhaps you should try again, reading slowly.

I did a quick calc for nurses' average hourly rate in NZ compared to Australia. In NZ, nurses get an average of $25 an hour and in Australia, $30 per hour (Salaryscale.com). NZ's GDP is $184 Billion and Aussies' GDP is $1.02 Trillion.

So as a proportion of GDP, NZ nurses get approximately 4.5 times the salary of Aussie nurses. To take this argument further, it means that if we were to use the same logic in the article, NZ nurses should only be paid around $5.60 per hour.

Does this statistical argument still stack up? I bet you dollars for donuts that every salary in NZ is between 4 and 5 times higher than those in Australia relative to the countries' GDP.

That is what makes this article nonsense!

All you Labour rednecks seem to have convieniently forgotten that your previous leader and PM would have been earning something pretty similar to what John Key is now. (lest we forget the recent expenses furore)

Where were your comments (and the gutter journalism) then, hmmmmm? Consistency please, yeah right! There are none so blind as those who look through one crazed red misted eye