Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson@Jan 4 2005, 02:36 PM
Movie star (?) Sandra Bullock has tossed $1 million at the American Red Cross for Asia Tsunami relief.
She also donated $1 million after 9/11.
For perspective and assuming, for no particular reason, that she's worth $50 million, her $1 million gift would be 2% of her net worth. Did any of us contribute 2% of our net worth?
I remember Roseanne Barr phoning all her rich pals after 9/11 trying to get them to pony up $1 million each and getting stone silence.
Anyway, Bullock sounds like a good trooper for this. I'm not keeping track of her life but I think she won a $10 million judgement last summer against a Texas developer who built her the crappiest house ever in Austin.
Should other celebrities follow suit? How much should any of us contribute? Should celebrities be held to a higher standard than you or I?
Tom Cruise was filming a picture in some obscure middle-America town a few weeks ago and saw a poster looking for donations so a local paraplegic child could get a special van or something. He pulled $5,000 out of his pocket and threw it in the can.
The Bullock story.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/37788.htm
Cowperson
|
I could be way off base here so feel free to call me on this.
First of all I think that a multi-millionaire ponying up 2% of their net worth represents a large amount of money. 2% of my net worth would be about $5,000. Is it easier to give up a million when you still have 49 million left in the can? I think so. Is it easy for a guy like me to pony up $5,000 when most of my supposed net worth is tied up in my house and an RRSP? Not so easy.
A couple of hundred out of me is about as much as is realistic - a far cry from 2% of the net worth equation.
Secondly I am of two minds on the press realease of someone like Sandra Bullock donating a cool mil to the cause. First mind is that an anonymous donation is much more admirable. Second is that her rather public donation could encourage other wallet heavies to buck up.