Even in the US many politicians are far, far wealthier than their official salaries would suggest is plausible.
Update: By the downvoting I know that you all know I mean the Clintons.
Just reporting on such issues is why most western newspapers have been blocked. They don’t even bother trying to refute it, because princeling dominance of the economy an open dirty secret. It also puts better into perspective how the economy is managed in favor of their own interests.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-leaders-family-worth-a-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/chinas-preside...
And do you remember that discussion about Wen Jiabao's mom controlling a good chunk of China's jewelry industry that got the new york times banned:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/business/global/family-of...
I think Chinese officials are genuinely surprised in how poor western politicians are and how many of them even lack xiaosans.
Except for the late-1970s cattle futures investment (which was legal and documented, just surprisingly unlikely), I think everything about the Clintons can be explained by their straightforward participation in private business like speaking engagements, consulting, and selling books. If you count their "official salaries" as salaries just from their jobs as public servants, you'd get a lower number, yes, but you don't need to speculate about bribery or corruption to figure out where the rest of the money comes from.
(I suppose you could construct an argument that these forms of private business are in fact morally equivalent to overt corruption, but I'd be curious to hear the details of that argument, especially as basically all of them were after Bill left office. There's a huge difference between bribing a current politician and a former one, in that the current one can meaningfully look the other way or send you kickbacks.)
Goldman's paid her a lot, didn't they?
Actually there isn't[0], because the former one can have looked the other way or sent you kickbacks while they were in office, in the knowledge that you would bribe them later, when it no longer officially 'counts' as corruption. This is the standard way that corruption works in the US, since there are laws against just directly bribing a politician the way you would in some other countries.
0: Edit: isn't a huge difference; obviously there is a little difference, just not enough to do more than slow down the development of corruption.
Putin or a Chinese Politburo member can get as much a Clintons ever made (all public--books, speech fees) by calling /blackmailing an oligarch or an exec of their big corps. In one shot. You simply do not exist unless the state allows you to in those countries.
Over there, every project has a corruption tax added to it and it goes to the top officials. Now think of that when it comes to hundred of billion projects a year.