The Most Generous Celebrities?

Parade magazine recently named what they called the most generous celebrities. The top 10:

1. Oprah Winfrey - $50.2 million
2. Herb Alpert - $13 million
3. Barbara Streisand - $11 million
4. Paul Newman - $10 million
5. Mel Gibson - $9.9 million
6. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt - $8.4 million
7. Michael Jordan - $5 million
8. Eric Lindros - $5 million
9. Lance Armstrong - $5 million
10. Rush Limbaugh - $4.2 million

But this is simply a list of who gave the most -- not are who the most generous. If we really wanted to see who the most generous celebrities were, we'd need to look at giving as a percentage of income and/or net worth.

I tried to find the net worths/incomes for each of the people on the list above to see which was the most generous, but that information was harder to find than you might imagine. I did find a few, but not very many, so I took a different route -- I decided to see who SHOULD have been on the list of the celebrities that gave the most.

According to Forbes, this should be the list of the most generous celebrities because they made the most money:

1. Oprah Winfrey
2. Tiger Woods
3. Angelina Jolie
4. Beyonce Knowles
5. David Beckham
6. Johnny Depp
7. Jay-Z
8. The Police
9. J.K. Rowling
10. Brad Pitt

Let's look this information over a bit. Not to pick on Oprah (she does give away a TON of money), but she should give a lot away based on how much she makes and how much she's worth. She made $275 million last year and has a net worth of $2.5 billion. So for her to give $50 million is really not THAT big of a deal. Same goes for Pitt and Jolie -- they're among the top earners, so they should be among the top givers.

As for the rest of the people on the Parade list, it's hard to tell who's the most generous, but none of them are in the top 10 earners, though they're in the top 10 givers.

My only issue is this -- is the giving list really right? Or maybe it's only what can be documented publicly. For instance, Tiger Woods is not on the list. Are you telling me that he gave less than $4.2 million last year? Just doesn't seem to fit his public image as a very generous person (he has a foundation and from what I've seen gives a ton to it.)

In the end, I'm splitting hairs a bit. Even if people give a small part of their income/net worth, they're still to be commended. I believe the average American gives something like 3% of his income to charity, so most (if not all) of these people do better than that. I know, I know, if we all had $20 million a year we all would probably give more (and it's easier to give more on a higher income.) But the giving levels of these people are still to be admired, don't you think?

Comments

[Michael Goode]

Herb Alpert! Wow, three cheers for that man. He is a great trumpeter, but no way he is as rich as the others.

[James]

"Not to pick on Oprah"-- but you ARE picking on Oprah. She gave away over 18% of what she made this year. I don't see a lot of people in our society giving away 18 percent. She not only talks the talk, but she walks the walk.

Could she give away more? Absolutely. But just because she is successful does not mean she owes the world a majority of her earnings.

Tiger Woods is one of the cheapest, most stingy "givers." He has great people marketing his charity, but he does not do much.

[guinness416]

Well, The Police and Rowling are Britain-based, which may be why they're not on the first list, right? I've always assumed (maybe naively) that most of these people give money anonymously or quietly. However you slice it that's a huge figure for Winfrey, though. Good for her.

[FMF]

James --

As I said, she gives away a great amount of money. But in comparison to the others on the list, she's well behind on giving as a parcentage of income/net worth.

[Kevin]

If you click through, Tiger comes in #15 at $1.35 million, which is just over 1% of his $115 million earned.

[Kevin]

Excuse me, that should be #18 for Tiger.

[Paul]

I'd like to see a similar list of politicians. Some folks are particularly good about spending other people's money, but not so good about being generous with the blessings they have.

I agree with James - you state in your post that Oprah should be the biggest giver, and she is. I think you have unfairly singled her out. The only people I can find who are more generous are Angelina and Brad, who gave away 24% of their combined income, and of course Lance Armstrong, who gave away many times more than he made this year.

[FMF]

Anon --

Can you find the incomes for the others like Herb Albert, Barbara Streisand, etc.? They're on the "highest givers" list, but not on the "highest earners" list. Put the two together and it's likely that they're way over the % given by Oprah and Pitt/Jolie.

That said, I'm willing to be proved wrong if you can show incomes for the others.

[Rick]

I agree with Paul. I would like to see how many politicians give a significant percentage of their earnings. After all, they give themselves raises, so they ought to have as much as they need...

[Jim]

Herb Alpert was a co founder of A&M records. He and a partner sold their stake in A&M in 1989 for $500M and then sold another company for $383M in 2000. http://www.luxist.com/tag/philanthropy/
Plus he has sold 72M records in his career.

Hard to say what his net worth is now but I'm sure its pretty substantial. Could easily be over $500M or even >$1B

Jim

[Tim]

If someone chooses to give a nice % of their income or net worth, good for them. but keeping score, in my opinion, is pointless. Plus, some people do give anonymously.

[Jim]

I believe that list from Forbes that has Oprah #1, and Tiger Woods #2 is the Forbes most powerful celebrities rather than a list of highest income.

Here's the list sorted by Pay:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/53/celebrities08_The-Celebrity-100_EarningsPrevYear.html

Top 10 with Incomes:
JK Rowling - $300M
Opray - $275M
50 cent $150M
Jerry Bruckheimer $145M
Steven Spielberg $130M
Tyler Perry $125M
Tiger Woods $115M
The POlice $115M
Jerry Seinfeld $85M
Jay-Z $82M

(note the numbers are June 07 to June 08)

[Jim]

From that same list, Angelina Jolie made $14M and Brad Pit made $20M for $34M combined. So with giving of $8.4M that is 24.7% of their income going to charity.

Here's a reference to Barbara Streisand making $60M in the June '06-June 07 period:
http://mediaoutrage.com/2008/01/29/madonna-tops-forbes-list-of-top-female-music-earners-with-72million/

OK I think I've done enough google searches about celebrity income for now. :)

I think anyone giving to charity should be applauded and encouraged. I'm guessing the amounts given to charity aren't perfect since they probably aren't aware of all giving. I'm guessing many of the celebrities also donate their time to charity causes which is also very helpful, but you can't see that here.

Jim

[FMF]

Jim --

You are correct!

It doesn't change the conclusion though -- almost all of the top earners are not the top givers. Oprah is the only one that made both lists. So kudos to her -- she earned a ton and gave a ton (while many others earned a ton and didn't give much.)

And the rest of the list of big givers seem REALLY generous since they're among the biggest givers but not on the biggest earners list.

And to Tim's point -- it's nice to see people simply giving in general. I'm sure they are helping many fine charities (and thus thousands of people.)

[Dar]

Does giving away money really reflect on how much celebrities (or others) give back to society? Yeah, it's nice that some of these celebrities give good-sized chunks of their cash away, but don't those who hold onto more also help by providing jobs and income to others? Even those celebrities who buy expensive toys for themselves or host lavish parties for themselves are providing money--in the form of work, which I think is better than raw charity--to the people who provide the raw materials, manufacturing, and service.

[Valerie]

I'm surprised Bill Gates isn't on this list. His foundation has given away millions, if not billions.

[Kevin]

I find it amazing that Seinfeld made $85 million and he isn't even really doing anything new is he?

[LotharBot]

It's difficult to accurately measure "generosity" when you're dealing with the very wealthy, for several reasons:

1) Income and giving may not be at the same time. Certain celebs make huge money over several years without doing much giving, and then give a huge chunk all at once. Others get a long-term contract and do a bunch of giving up front.

2) Net Worth complicates the issue. It makes people able to give far more than they earn over the course of a whole year, and barely feel it. I don't know how Oprah's 18% of income actually stacks up given her total resources. Same with Lance Armstrong giving more than he earned.

3) Not all "giving" reaches those in need in the same way. People like Bill Gates create huge foundations, which you can think of as giving all of their money away at once, or you can think in terms of what the foundation puts out per year. Which of those is the better measure?

4) Not all charities are the same, and not all generosity is through giving. Does giving to a political campaign count? What if it's a campaign to increase government funding for social programs? What about starting a business in a low-income part of town, and intentionally hiring the most needy?

5) Accounting wizardry. "Reported income" and actual available income are very different things, as are reported and actual giving.

I have to applaud many of the above for giving, even if I can't measure it in a reasonable way. Anything above zero is a win in my book.

[Aussie Karen]

I applaud anyone who gives to charity. What I'd like to know is how many of these celebrities know how much their giving and who they give it to? Is it just their accountant's way of reducing their tax?

I should add I know nothing of how the US tax system works (nor do I wish to!) but it seems to me that a lot of people who "give" in Australia, do so because it provides them with tax breaks.

For me, that's not the reason to give, true philanthropy should be about giving to help others, but that's just my opinion.

[Nicholas Paldino]

I agree with the comments about applauding anyone who gives to charity. It's not a requirement, and to do it in any fashion, large or small, is commendable.

The problem with this post is that it looks at net worth and combines it with profit to indicate what should be given. The problem with net worth is that it is a snapshot at a moment in time, while the profit is measured over the year (along with the giving).

If Oprah had liquidated everything and then gave nothing, perhaps you would have a bone to pick.

It should be noted that the 18% that she gave is more than most give through tithing (which is 10%).

[CJ]

Tiger Woods has his own foundation - his donations probably aren't publicly listed, so be careful where you're throwing punches.

That may be the same reason I was surprised not to see Bill Gates on the list - again has his own foundation.

I don't know if that even matters - just something to chew on.

[Joshua Raines]

I think your not seeing the whole picture here. These people do work for the money there giving away. By your numbers then Oprah gave away 18.18% of her earnings last year. That's also just what is reported. I make 42,000 a year and if I decided to give away 18.18% I would be giving away $7635.60. I dont know about you but I kind of need that money to live on. Just because she makes more doesn't mean that she "owes" it to anyone. If I was a charity I would be happy to gain $50 million. I would also be happy to accept $7635.60. I dont think this post was well thought out.