I covered some of the early excerpts from Keira Knightley’s Glamour cover story a few days ago, but Glamour released some new quotes and I wanted to cover them. Keira has been a working actress for something like 12 years. She’s been a full-fledged movie star, with a movie star paycheck, for about 9 or 10 years. I’m sure she has quite a bit of money stocked away, probably something over $20 million and less than $50 million. Besides the fact that she’s one of the most in-demand young actresses out there and getting paid as such, she’s also taken lucrative modeling contracts, for Chanel and the jewelry firm Asprey, amongst others. What I’m saying is that Keira is rich. And to her credit, she doesn’t seem to live a very extravagant lifestyle. But are these quotes patronizing?
GLAMOUR: It was reported recently that you allotted yourself a “salary” of only about $50,000 in 2012. True?
KK: Yes, it’s something around that. I mean, if I want or need something that goes over that, I get it, but, yes, around that.GLAMOUR: Forgive me for sounding crass, but it seems awfully little for a household-name Hollywood star!
KK: I think living an [expensive] lifestyle means you can’t hang out with people who don’t live that lifestyle. It alienates you. Some of my best, most hilarious times have been in the least luxurious places.
Yeah… I mean, I understand what she’s trying to say, but I’ve known wealthy people like that, who like the idea of “slumming it” and pretending like they were keeping to a budget, and they drive off in their Mercedes S-Class to go back to their mansion. Those people are annoying. Again, I can understand the idea of not wanting to be materialistic, not wanting to flaunt your enormous wealth, but it seems like Keira is patronizing people who actually live on less than $50,000 a year (which, statistically, is most of us).
Keira also says that she didn’t change her name privately to Keira Righton (“I found I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t go there. Yet.”) and that her parents didn’t even understand why she and James bothered to get married.
Photos courtesy of Glamour.
So pretty.
I think her heart and head are in the right place, but it’s a heck of lot easier to live on $50,000 a year when you are constantly showered with comps, freebies and swag bags. I highly doubt she tells Chanel “no” when they offer her an ensemble whose retail cost would exceed her self-imposed budget.
That said, I still generally like her.
^^my thoughts as well
Ditto. I think he heart is in the right place, and I have been continually surprised by how thoughtful and articulate she comes off in many interviews. I think her acting gets better and better–and it is I think true that real acting talent necessarily goes hand in hand with real intelligence.
But yeah… Actually living on $50K, with children, and constant worries about, for instance, taking days off when your kids get sick, or unexpected car repairs, or a medical bill… even when you budget carefully and don’t spend beyond your means, it’s not easy. If her car breaks down, no doubt she just drives one of the other three or four she has, and doesn’t worry about how much it costs to repair.
I genuinely, genuinely applaud her ability to see that life’s meaning doesn’t come from extravagance, and I think she’s lovely. I just think…. yeah.
Good point about the freebies.
There’s nothing wrong with living on a budget, no matter how much total wealth you’ve accumulated. If she really does limit her spending to 50K a year, she’ll hold on to her money a lot longer.
Oh my god exactly. Sorry, but I eyeroll the hell out of this.
Very true.
Also, many stars give themselves a “salary”. For tax purposes, they typically get paid through their name-hiding corp so they get taxed at a lower corporate rate. Then they pay out themselves, which a lot of times results in their business operating “at a loss”, greatly reducing their taxes compared to if they were just paid as an individual directly and not through their corp.
This.
Also, no way is she living on actual $50,000 a year if she owns or lets in London’s hipper or posher hoods. Not if she wants more than a shoebox. I suspect she gives herself $50,000 as an allowance for frivolous stuff *after* her overhead bills are paid.
That’s what I thought, too. She probably spend $50,000 a year on things she wants, after her overhead.
Yeah, I think it’s $50K/yr for mad money, which $500 probably goes to food.
There is a vast difference between living off of $50,000 when you know you can tap into savings at any time, or when you use your capital to buy a nice pad, and don’t need that $50,000 to pay the mortgage, etc. However, I think she is being very smart financially, knowing there may be a time 5-10 years from now when she is just living off of the interest from whatever millions she has socked away.
Exactly. She’s basically saying she’s given herself an allowance of $50,000 p/a. I’m sure she isn’t worrying about where the $200+ for next month’s electricity bill is coming from.
Having said that though, she does seem to live a fairly low key life and I respect that, so whatever, I guess.
Exactly! While we may question whether she is truly living on so small a budget, the fact is, she has a budget. It’s a prudent move, no matter who you are. She could quit acting tomorrow and be set for life. If Biebs or the Kardashians were to just quit working, they’d be bankrupt within five years given their lifestyle.
This is one of the least offensive/tone deaf quotes about money I have heard from a celebrity. Yes 50,000 more than a lot of people make in a year, I get what she is saying and I don’t think this is too bad.
Agreed. I also think it’s very smart of her, she won’t likely be in high demand forever (I would even argue that she isn’t in high demand now, compared to the early 2000s) and should be saving that cash and holding on to her real friends.
Not to mention that it’s incredibly difficult to own and run a house on a 50k salary alone. I doubt she lives in a 900 sq footer away from the city where costs are very high. Maybe she meant GBP?
I’m pretty sure the 50K is “just” her spending money and everything else is being taken care of by an accountant or money manager. Things like, electricity, mortgage, insurance, other household stuff. I bet she doesn’t even include groceries, toiletries or even furniture in that 50K. I would love to have 50K to bounce around with.
Oops I somehow replied to the wrong post. I meant it in reply to wren33. But I’ll agree I am not offended though as YuYa states there are likely many costs she is not counting towards her yearly *salary*
Agree.
I agree. She is being smart about the use of her money, instead of going crazy overboard buying walls of roses and closets full of leather pants like the Kardashians. She’ll probably be living well off her savings and still acting in some great parts in her senior years, while celebs like Kim and Kanye will be doing infomercials for psychic networks in an attempt to stave off their fifth bankruptcy.
I agree, theres nothing to be offended about here. She was asked about lifestyle, she answered making sure to point out that she isnt completely restricted to the 50K limit. She is clearly very aware of how meaningless and pointless flamboyant lifestyles are. She isnt saying her life is equivalent to yours. Shes saying that she tries to moderate her spending so that she can focus on the more important things in life. Good for her. Most people her age havent figured that out and probably never will.
Thank you.
I don’t understand how what she has said (what she has actually said, not the words people are putting in her mouth) is in any way patronizing , rude or ignorant. At least she is saving money for a rainy day. At least she understands that even for her right now money is not a endless resource. We laugh at Lohan for having nothing left, we are grossed out by the tackiness of the Kardishians, but when someone actually does something intelligent they get dissed.
And please, anyone who thinks by these quotes that she is saying she ‘completely’ lives off 50k a year, get some critical thinking skills.
I actually don’t find that patronizing at all. I’m sure there are plenty of perks that she doesn’t need to pay for which makes her life nicer than the rest of ours. (Free Chanel dresses, ahem)
I think she just tries to live reasonably so that she doesn’t alienate herself from her friends.
Agreed. Plus many rich people don’t live their lives like they are a Kardashian. Warren Buffet lives in the same house he bought in 1958 and drives a 7 year old Cadillac. Wealthy business owners give themselves an income from their company and that’s what they live on day-to-day, its not that odd.
I think it is great that she is spending wisely and worrying more about enjoying herself with real people who she can relate to, rather than drinking Cristal in the vip area.
I wish I had something witty to say, but it find her comment about the $50,000 allowance (which is what she’s doing – I’m assuming she’s not including mortgage payments in that amount) to be somewhere between patronizing and ignorant.
Unlikely that she has a mortgage – she probably paid cash for her home (actors with inconsistent salaries aren’t great mortgage candidates.) $50K a year for a married 20-something who gets lots of free clothing and swag sounds pretty sensible. Why would it be ignorant to make a point to live comfortably but cognizant of the future?
I appreciate that she’s “living within her means” considering her net worth. But to say she’s being frugal by allotting herself fifty grand a year as basically her allowance, at a time when so many people, here in the States, are struggling to put a roof over their heads and food on the table at minimum wage, sounds at best insensitive and at worst woefully ignorant. JMO.
Where does she say she’s being “frugal”? I would agree with you if she had, but she didn’t. She just says she doesn’t want to live an extravagant lifestyle. She doesn’t even imply that she’s scrimping in any way. Isn’t driving around in a Bentley and going on $10K shopping trips MORE offensive to folks just trying to get by?
As she’s British, I doubt very much she meant to offend any Americans having a hard time financially. Why she should have to consider the American economy when she lives in the UK is another question?
Where does she say she’s being frugal? She just says she tries to lives moderately because being lavish would leave her lonely. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s so messed up that people find fault with that attitude. I wish more young stars (BIEBER) thought like that.
My husband and I live off his salary now, because our first baby is about to arrive and I’m staying home. We are very comfortable and blessed at just under $100,000 but we still have to budget like crazy since we own a home, a car, have a small debt, try to save, etc. I kind if doubt Keira only goes on maybe one vacation a year and cooks most of her own food to save money, clips coupons and says “no” to herself a lot, like we have to do just to live off of TWICE what she’s claiming to live off of.
Basically what I’m saying is I live in the real world and I call bulls**t on this.
Me, too. You don’t “live” on $50,000 a year if “I want or need something that goes over that, I get it.” Lol
I like her, but that was kind of silly.
She may go over, but I think what she is doing is setting parameters for herself. It is silly in the sense that she knows she has a huge safety net above and beyond that amount, but if she never worked another day, sticking to the more realistic income could help her adjust down the road.
Although I will say I know very little about her personally so maybe she is full of it, but on paper, it sounds like foresight instead of spending like there’s no tomorrow.
Ok, that makes sense. I reread it, and she a) didn’t bring it up, but was answering a question, and b) didn’t get all Goopy and try to claim she had it worse than other people living on 50,000. So, she doesn’t actually have the experience of someone who earns that much, but she’s setting that as a goal so she won’t overspend. I’m good with that.
Hi GoodNames,
Hope you have been well! I rather understand what she is saying … for example, my family has been financially blessed and as such, there is a certain amount of money that we have saved and put into savings, retirement, college savings (for our children) accounts. Some of that will never be touched (retirement & college savings) until an appropriate time, but what we have put into our savings accounts … well, we set a budget per month based upon income, we live on that budget, and we continue to put money into savings as part of that budget. Every once in a while, though, if there is something we really want, we may pull some funds from that savings account. I understand that Keira has a much larger account to pull from, but most people who save for the future do this (on a much smaller scale). Do you not agree?
ETA: this comment is stuck in moderation and so your response to Kiddo popped up before my comment posted! Apologies!
Exactly! If you know you can tap into savings of millions – probably tens of millions – of pounds at any time you choose, then you are NOT living on fifty thousand.
In trying to appear grounded, Kiara actually comes across as clueless and out of touch.
I’m not in the mood to be understanding.
I just spent $2,000 on my cat’s hospitalization, $6,000 to move into my new apartment (not including the movers which will probably cost me $1,000) and got towed yesterday for parking on the wrong side of the street on street cleaning day ($200 out the window). I’m feeling broke and bitchy and I really don’t wanna hear about this chick’s “modest” $50,000 budget.
Now get me a beer.
Yup. This.
Well, given that the current number of people living in poverty (defined as below $23,850.00 USD per year for a family of FOUR people) exceeds 46 million in the USA, the reality is that a great number of people could find your comment equally as patronizing for the same reasons you criticize Keira’s comment (e.g. the ‘We are very comfortable and blessed at just under $100,000 … I kind if doubt Keira … says “no” to herself a lot, like we have to do’). No snark intended, honestly. It is just that having one person in a family be able to bring home nearly 100,000.00 USD a year for a family of currently two people, soon to be three, would be an amazing blessing for those 46 million people. Your reality is someone else’s dream … much as Keira’s financial security is someone else’s dream.
Sources: http://www.povertyusa.org & http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
The average salary in the US hovers around $60,000, while the median is only about $40,000. Most people would be thrilled to make six figures. It’s the truth.
Yes. Some of us make do on a lot less. The grass is always greener.
Yup. Two full-time working parents with two young kids in my house. Combined salary of a little less than $75,000. It ain’t easy (and I know others have it worse).
Eh, it’s all relative.
I make what many would consider a decent salary but living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, my paycheck doesn’t stretch very far. Keep in mind that I have no kids either, yet I’m still pretty much living paycheck to paycheck.
If I was living in Atlanta with the same salary, I’d have a mansion with servants quarters, but in Boston I can barely afford a 600 sq ft apartment.
Oh, but kitten you would make less money in Atlanta. I made way more money in California than I would make where I am now. It’s still all relative, isn’t it?
I know she’s trying to sound down to earth but to me that sounds like she is stingy. That she makes sure she doesn’t pay for anything and instead asks for freebies due to her celeb status. It’s annoying.
I kind of want to believe her…she isn’t known for being super flashy and hasn’t she had the same tiny flat in London forever? That said, she gets a lot of freebies and perks that I doubt she would say no to.
She’s smart to save that $$$. She’s set for life. *ahem, Lohan*
No, she just bought a nice place a few months ago in London, I think.
Tree photo should be the lead. It’s really nice to see some inspired styling and photography.
On the income: Maybe she is just saving for a rainy day?
On one hand, its good she’s not materialistic by living off a modest budget…however she still has it a lot easier than most of us do. Afterall, she probably gets tons of freebies simply for being a star. She technically gets paid to go to different countries (for shooting a movie or promotion).
I don’t find this obnoxious in any way. She acknowledges that she’s lucky and that she isn’t undertaking some big sacrifice to strictly keep to a fake budget. But by trying to keep her spending in that ballpark, it probably means she doesn’t eat at the most expensive restaurants regularly just because she can, she doesn’t buy a ton of designer clothing just because she can, etc. I think it’s smart for her to avoid getting into those habits and then thinking it’s just *impossible* to live on any less, like a lot of stars do.
Nothing wrong with what she does. If she wants to eat Cup Noodles everyday to stay within her alloted budget, fine. Many celebs just spend way too much that they cannot maintain that lifestyle when the roles start to dry up. But she sounds patronizing.
That’s what it sounds like to me, too. I mean, $50,000 is a lot for most people and she likely gets a lot of free stuff – it sounds like she knows and acknowledges this. But given the industry that she’s in, there’s probably a lot of pressure to live big and she knows that she might not be in demand forever. It’s easier to live on less if you’re used to living on less than have to downgrade.
I sort of get what she’s saying, but it’s stupid. To say that you have a $50,000/year salary would mean that with that all of your expenses come out of that…mortgage, food, clothing expenses, entertainment, child care, fuel, heating/cooling costs, medical bills, vacations, etc. More than likely she sets a guideline of $50,000 for “play” money because there is no way her budget for expenses is $50,000/year.
To be fair though, Keira most likely doesn’t have a mortgage, she doesn’t pay for child expenses yet and she would receive a lot of free clothes. Her apartment where she lives with her husband is small so bills are unlikely to be huge and they probably split household costs. In Keira’s circumstances $50,000 would probably go a long way. My understanding from her comment is that she acknowledges her above average and extremely comfortable circumstances but doesn’t live so extravagantly that her friends cannot keep up with her. Plus I’m sure an extreme medical bill, or a personal holiday would be occasions she dips into her savings. I think her limits are smart not stupid.
+1 Quinn 🙂
I got the impression she just doesn’t want to live a flashy lifestyle and throw money around – that can change relationships and attract the wrong kind of people. It’s probably a pretty smart way to be, but I don’t know if it was necessary to put it out there publicly.
Exactly! She’s putting people before money. She is choosing to keep things relatively modest so she doesn’t alienate those around her. That says a lot. As for putting it out there publicly, she was just answering a question I’m sure.
I don’t think in anyway she is suggesting that she has to worry about money or what she is doing is comparable to how other people live. She states that she doesn’t have to worry about the big stuff. She just prefers not to live a flashy life.
There’s a song about that Keira, Common People by Pulp. It’s nice to keep it real but she will never have to worry about money when she gets sick, you know, like the rest of us.
LOL! I had EXACTLY the same thought on reading this! It also reminds me of those journalists who go on the dole for a whole week and say it’s not actually that bad – what they forget is that people on the dole have to rely on it for EVERYTHING – rent, bills, food, child-care, you name it. Unlike Kiara, they don’t have massive savings to dip into ‘if I want something’ nor are they getting huge freebies from Chanel or other companies, not to mention all-expenses paid trips abroad. Also, I’m sure Kiara has at least one fully paid-for home – no mortgage or rent for her – so really, what she’s referring to is more of a ‘personal allowance’ than an amount of money she actually has to live on for an entire year.
I think Kiara seems like a nice person – though she’s a horrible actress – and I don’t think she meant to sound patronising or out of touch. Unfortunately, however, that is exactly the way she is coming across.
I don’t think she is out of touch. It seems many posters are projecting their own circumstances and the circumstances of financially struggling people on to how Keira spends her money. She clearly states she has organised her income so she is not alienated from HER circle of friends. She is not trying to relate with struggling single mums , or a sick person unable to work and afford medical treatment or in any way trying to portray she ‘lives like common people’. We shouldn’t resent her because she is rich.
I’m not sure how it can be patronizing when she doesn’t doesn’t drive off to a mansion in an expensive car. I don’t think she has a huge house or a car at all, and it’s nice to see a celebrity who realizes that they don’t have to be so lavish all the time. People seem to be putting more into Keira’s words than are actually there.
If the Kardashians had said this then I would agree, but not Keira.
She’s married, right? So does her husband also live off this $50,000 a year or is that just her allowance. To me it’s patronizing and if she is saying she puts most of her money away and in to investments, say that and don’t put a figure out there that you are “living” on. As others have said, she is really not living on just $50,000 a year. It’s great that she is saving her money.
I also have no problem with this. I understand what she means by keeping it real and not allowing herself to splash out on whimsical things just because she can. It also takes care of the freeloaders that come when people know you have lots of money.
It’s a smart way to learn how to handle money and understand it’s value when you limit yourself and learn how to spend it wisely. So many people who come into money young just spend like crazy. Then one day their career is over and they find themselves broke and forced to adjust to a lifestyle without money.
It’s true, she doesn’t have the stress when she wants/needs something above that amount because can just tap into her savings and she does get loads of freebies, but I still find it refreshing to hear that someone with lots of money chooses to live on a yearly amount that many other people get by on as well.
Sounds more like she gives herself an allowance- spending money. I don’t think it’s patronising, just misleading. It does sound, though, as if she has a good financial handle on managing her money- for a millionaire. Sounds like she’s trying to stay grounded in her own way and is mindful of her friends.
I used to dislike her and find her pretentious, but she’s really grown on me. I live on considerably less than $50k a year and I’m not offended by this at all. Sounds like a smart practice. She’s not commenting on other people’s lifestyles or making any grand claims about living inexpensively, just saying what she does to save her money and avoid lifestyle inflation, which must be difficult for a celebrity. She’s not making the Pirates big bucks anymore, so that’s a responsible, intelligent decision. Her personal life seems to be in keeping with that too – she wore a modest dress that was already in her closet for a courthouse wedding.
I don’t think it’s patronizing. It’s a generous sum of money to allot herself as one individual who is married to someone with a second income, who may or may not have regular bills plus all the freebies and star privileges she undoubtedly has. The Klaxons are a very successful band in EU and just released a new album. I always got the impression she was a bit posh too, I don’t know how much money she had growing up but it seems like her career began early as well. What is offensive are all the comments saying one person can’t live on 50k a year when that is the US household average and it’s only 10k more a year for the average family (assuming more than two people are working). The economy is bad to the point where college grads who aren’t in computers or engineering are lucky to find anything for 30k and it takes a high school diploma to work at Hooters. So idk what universe you all are living in but the allowance she gives herself is still twice as much as the average American makes. It’s smart for celebs to not spend all their money on ridiculous real estate cars and clothes by the time they’re 40.
I’m not quite sure what to say to people who think it would be hard for her to live off of 50,000. Especially as I assume her home is paid for and she has no kids to worry about, and doesn’t have to pay for work related travel or for the clothes she wears to public events. And I don’t find her admitting this to be in any way offensive, in fact I applaud her, more people should take pride in living within their means, and I love that she budgets herself do she can still hang out with her friends. It’s pretty terrible when friends just aren’t aware of how they act when finances are drastically different. Just an example, a rich group of friends invited some of us girls (still poor students at this point) to a fancy, ridiculously overpriced restaurant, we bit the bullet and ordered the items we could afford while our friends ordered platters of expensive items, and then, when it came time to pay, they split the bill between all of us. Equally. Which put us out about $70 each, when I’d only gotten a salad. They just didn’t notice, or care. Needless to say I do not really hang out with them any longer. So I’m sure Keira’s friends appreciate and love her for choosing to moderate her lifestyle.
Dollars or pounds? I mean she lives in the UK.
And I believe she means allowance money here. She’s got houses in prestigious locations (London and France) and cars, I hardly think she maintains it all + food + travelling + allowance cash with that figure.
Good in her if she does and I understand what she means. I know I’d be hard pressed to hang with her if every restaurant we go to its like 500 bucks for dinner and drinks
I can’t afford to vacation in St tropez or Monaco for 2 weeks. I get what she is saying..
Not to mention, she had a pretty low key low budget wedding so i believe her
Whatever helps a person to keep their sanity! She earns her millions so she can do whatever she wants with it.
She looks amazing!!
She looks great here, beautiful and interesting pictures. And if I was a celebrity that is pretty much what I would do and say. I would monitor my spendings casually to see that I do not accidentaly overspend on trivilialities that I only think I need and I would not have problem with talking about it casually. I think that if celebrities talk honesty of their lives people easily think them patronizing. I do not mind even complaing a bit if it is not constant. Everybody has little issues in life.
She gives herself a salary of $50,000. I don’t think she lives on that alone nor did she mean to say that. But good for her not looking at all of her money as limitless.
I’m not sure how it is in the UK but in the US actors often pay themselves a low salary and keep the rest of their money in their loan-out/production company to help with taxes.
I would guess something similar happens in the UK. I read an article in the British press a few months ago that said Keira had claimed 27,000 pounds as her taxable income for 2013, which is roughly equivalent to $50,000 US. There’s no way she made that little, so that must be the amount she paid herself in salary from her company.
Clothes for public appearances and travel for work can be paid by the company as business expenses and wouldn’t come out of that budget.
I kept my name when I got married, and I know my husband’s family were confused – and a tab offended – by that (odd, because his parents are divorced and there are like, three different last names floated around on his side between father, mother, grandparents, etc.)
Still, the whole “why bother getting married if you aren’t changing your name” thing is pretty silly. Marriage isn’t about your surname. There are a ton of legal benefits to getting married – things like being able to call the shots if your spouse is hospitalized, tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc.
Anyway… end rant.
I doubt most wealthy celebrities give themselves an allowance of any sort. Kudos to Kiera.
I’m totally fascinated by this comment of Keira’s. I want to know the dirty details – like does this include all her utility bills, food costs, eating out costs, and clothing? Or is it simply disposable income after necessities are paid for?
I really admire people who are financially disciplined and totally aware of their budgets when it isn’t strictly necessary. I’ve had to be very budget-minded for the past two years because I’ve returned to school, and while I don’t mind some parts of living on a strict budget (shopping for groceries according to sales in flyers and trying to eliminate all food wastage), other parts of it suck (not buying clothing for multiple 6-month stretches and gradually losing much of my wardrobe to ordinary wear and tear; having exactly one four-year-old-dress to wear to any formal event). I don’t know if I would have the discipline to do what she’s doing if I didn’t need to. I love well-made goods and high-quality items, yet I have not bought such items for several years now. If I had the money to dick around Paris on a whim, buy any book I wanted to in hardcover, purchase shoes that were handmade in Italy with leather soles, and buy wine that cost more than $15, I would do it. It would be awesome to not spend days researching and hours bargain-hunting for any essential item that I need. That said, I have financial privilege as well. I can afford a decent and enjoyable life and am not impoverished. I’m fortunate.
I don’t think she’s a saint for living on a budget, or anything. She seems pretty aware of how privileged she is with the comment about how living lavishly alienates you from people.
I think she does it to keep her mindset in a certain place-she’s not saying extravagance or wealthy lifestyle is bad, just that she wants to continue to have experiences in different ways-not only the wealthy yacht type. Plus, she may have/want friends of all means-ie, interesting and creative people who she enjoys hanging out with. I think it’s her way of mentally keeping herself from becoming habitualized to certain activities or places all the time. Habits become lifestyle very quickly. She’s a refreshing change from the Goopys of this world.
And i’ve always thought she was gorgeous, and have liked her since Bend it like Beckam days. These photos are gorgeous. I’m glad she’s getting some love lately-for awhile there, ppl seemed to be pretty harsh on her as far as celebrity-dom goes.
OMG, the comparison to Goop is so apt. Imagine Goop trying to budget like one of us plebeians. She can’t even comprehend the reality of a normal working person’s schedule, much less the concept of a budget. She’d probably spin it into something tone deaf like “oh, people on limited incomes have it so much easier, because when you can only afford cheap things, you just go to Wal-Mart and get all your stuff there, and you don’t have the difficulty of choosing between luxurious high-end labels. It’s complete agony!”
Yes. I think Goop is an example of someone who lives for her own image. She seems really wealthy, and she might be, but I think her budget is astronomical. Some of the Goop suggestions is insane, even for wealthy people. There’s a big difference between celebrities and those with real wealth.
I have a feeling what she really meant was she allows herself $50K a year spending cash. There is NO WAY her rent/mortgage is in the $50K range. I don’t think she was being very clear, but I do see where she’s coming from and respect what she’s trying to do (although saying, “but if I want something that costs more than that I get it” sort of cancels the original intention right out).
And how much free stuff is bestowed on our thrifty princess, eh?
I think the $50k is her spending money- what she spends on entertainment and shopping. It’s obviously not what she spends for mortgage, utilities, car, health insurance, etc. because I saw on The Real Estalker that she recently bought a nice house in London for several million pounds.
I think it’s really smart of her to set a spending or “play money” budget, and I understand what she was saying about her lifestyle being alienating for friends who don’t have that type of money- if you won’t go down to the pub for a drink but will only go to a really fancy bar where drinks are $20 and there’s a door charge, then not many of your non-movie star friends are going to be able to come with you since they don’t have that kind of money.
Did anyone watch the Lindsay Lohan documentary? She’s a perfect example of someone who earned millions of dollars and has NO sense of keeping to a spending budget. It seems shocking that if you earn $10 million, you couldn’t possible blow through it, but the reality is that you can’t live like your annual salary is $10 million; you have to live like your annual salary is $500k, because you live on the interest, not the principal. Keira Knightley is being smart.
I’m thinking she meant luxury spending money, as in money beyond what she’s paying for in basic necessities like property taxes, residential fees/mortgages, insurance, food, utility, transportation, etc.
“I mean, if I want or need something that goes over that, I get it, but, yes, around that.”
So basically she tries to limit her luxury spending money but if she goes over $50k, then oh well, she’ll “get it” anyways.
I think she understands the value of money, as opposed to other actresses (GOOP).
I’m not offended, nor do I find anything she said patronizing. Keira was asked a question that the journalist brought up and she answered it. Paying yourself a salary is nothing new. Lots of people do it, particularly really wealthy people. For people with great wealth, paying yourself a salary IS living below their means and it’s how they remain wealthy.
I know people who make six figures or close to it and they’re not wealthy. Their salary is high but they don’t sock any of it away so they’ll never be wealthy. Don’t be drawn in by the flash.. there isn’t much underneath it.
I live on a budget of zero dollars, unless I want or need something, then I just buy it, with money. But, yeah, I live on a budget of zero.
It pisses me off when rich people live “budget”.
The difference is if I had $50,000 to live on. I would could not afford chanel, travel the world and live a very lux life, even if I wanted to.
For my money I would barely make it after all the bills and necessities.
Quiet abnoxious!
C’mon people…are we seriously so bitchy and have a need to project our own issues so much that we can’t just take this for what it is? She knows she’s fortunate…why do we have to begrudge her that good fortune and spew all over what is essentially an admirable trait no matter what your income – the actual realisation of the need to budget and plan for the future.
And FYI, she probably wasn’t alluding to $50,000 in terms of what it means in the American economy given that she’s English…no offense intended, but the US is not the centre of the universe, you know? The rest of the world does not define themselves in relation to American culture/politics/economy etc.
YES. Thank you.
Exactly