We've got a fascination with prime ministers and their money, it turns out.  

Last night 1News did the calculation that Christopher Luxon stands to make $480,000 off the sale of his apartment in Wellington —he's moving out because he's going over to Premier House— and also a rental property that he's selling in South Auckland.  

Now the implication of the story was that Christopher Luxon's making too much money off these properties, and he should be taxed.  

Over the weekend, a newspaper in Wellington also reported that Jacinda Ardern is earning $316,000 per appearance every time she speaks on the international speaking circuit, and the implication there was —certainly in commentary afterwards— that it's unethical for her to be doing that. It's damaging her reputation by showing that she really does love money over doing good after all. And if prime ministers keep on doing stuff like this, how do we know that they're actually making the right decisions when they are in power and not thinking about what kind of money they're gonna earn afterwards?  

Now, look, I don't mind the fascination with prime ministers and former prime ministers' earnings. I think it's completely human nature to be into it. We're fascinated by what our colleagues earn, right? So why wouldn't we be fascinated by what Luxon and Ardern earn? However, that is where I think it should stop – at fascination.  

There's nothing wrong with Jacinda Ardern earning that much money off the speaking circuit. Frankly, if we're honest about it, talking was about the only thing she was actually good at, and she'd be a fool not to take that kind of money if it's on offer.  

Same goes for Luxon. He was a well-paid businessman before politics. You would expect him to have plenty of money, you would expect him to put some of that money into property. And unless things have gone very bad for him in his calculations, you would expect him to make money off a property, especially one that he has apparently renovated. Nothing wrong here.  

To suggest that Luxon's capital gain on his property is evidence that we need a capital gains tax and to suggest that Jacinda's speaking circuit means that we need to put some sort of restraint of trade on future prime ministers is just taking it a bit far, isn't it?  

It's fine to be fascinated, just leave it at that.