The economic difficulties of (some) celebrities
The L.A. Times writes about the financial difficulties of five celebrities, focusing on Ed McMahon. Their problems are sad, but the article advances two entertaining excuses for them:
When the work is coming, so are the perks, which may be part of the reason many celebrities have a hard time understanding the actual costs of their high standard of living. While they are employed, most top stars can go for weeks without having to pay for much more than breath mints. Movie studios cover their hotel, food and transportation bills; designers shower them with free clothes; and gift baskets come jammed with complimentary cellphones, jewelry and other goodies.
That swanky lifestyle soon becomes addictive -- even after some third party has stopped underwriting it. And Hollywood can be as cruel as it is kind with compensation, and the once-hot actress who was making $10 million a few years ago might be forced to scrape by with just $5 million now. If her cost of living has grown to match those better-off days, she might suddenly find herself millions in the hole.. . .
Almost every performer retains a talent agent, whose fees average 10% of the gross returns, and many also use a personal manager, who typically takes 15% more. A business manager will charge an additional 5% and attorneys can add the same fee. Then there's the publicist, who can cost as much as $5,000 a month. So a hypothetical $100,000 acting job would net about $60,000, and state and federal taxes would trim that amount even more.
(Question: why do the talent agent, personal manager, business manager, and attorney all get a piece of the gross, but the publicist doesn't?)
