Britney Spears gave 12 times more to charity than Leo DiCaprio in 2005 (update)

Leonardo DiCaprio is trying to save his money like he’s trying to save the environment. Despite campaigning for environmental causes and ensuring that he helps get the word out about the need to reduce our global footprint, DiCaprio gave away less than $50,000 from his fortune in 2005. Britney Spears, on the other hand, gave over 12 times that amount that year:

In total, Britney gave away $590,000 in 2005, including $350,000 to relief programs related to Hurricane Katrina. Spears donated $175,000 alone to Habitat for Humanity.

On the other hand — and just by comparison for a celebrity of her generation and income — actor Leonardo DiCaprio only gave away $48,025 in 2005 to a handful of groups from his own registered tax-exempt foundation.

DiCaprio commands between $12 million and $15 million per film, at least, and famously made $10 million from “Titanic” in 1997.

Spears, on other hand, hasn’t worked in a long time and is certainly cash-depleted, thanks to the Federline situation.

Spears is also the target of the worst publicity in the world. But thanks to Nina Biggar, who runs the Britney Spears Foundation from her home in Cambridge, Mass., the pop star can count her charitable giving as a bright spot in her sketchy world.

Britney gave a foolish $30,000 to a Kabbalah education group, Spirituality for Kids, but her other donations to Hurricane Katrina and Habitat for Humanity were certainly well-spent.

It’s kind of surprising to hear how little DiCaprio gave in 2005 and maybe he’ll step it up once he realizes the news is out. His mother moved from Germany as a child and he mostly lived with her after his parents divorced when he was one. His father was around and re-married, while his mother worked several jobs. He also spent time in Germany with his mother’s family and speaks German fluently. [Information from Wikipedia]

I know my German in-laws are pretty conservative about money. He probably learned frugality from his mother, who must have struggled to make ends meet. It makes sense that he would work hard for environmental causes, and that same drive to conserve has probably led him to be careful with his money.

I’m surprised Britney is so charitable in comparison and that gives me a better impression of her.

Thanks to WeSmirch for linking this.

Update: a lot of people are calling bullshit on this story, and saying that just because DiCaprio only declared 50k in donations it doesn’t mean he didn’t give much more. He was said to have given an “undisclosed” amount to the tsunami relief effort in 2005 (thanks Diva) and it’s possible he gives anonymously to other charities, as many commentors have mentioned. Sorry for relying on this one story for the information.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

21 Responses to “Britney Spears gave 12 times more to charity than Leo DiCaprio in 2005 (update)”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. countrybabe says:

    This story seems a bit silly. Brit is from LA she should have given a lot. Leo on he other hand. I’m surprised he doesn’t make more.
    Brad Pitt makes 28 million per film for bad acting.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Leo is cheap

  3. xxx says:

    I want to know where this information comes from? We donate money all the time and don’t and don’t declare it as it makes no difference on our income taxes. We are in the top 1% of earnings in the country and there is no reason to declare what we donate for tax benefits, there aren’t any in that tax bracket. The story is bs.

  4. KC says:

    I have to call shenanigans on this. So Leo chose to donate 50,000 through his charity – that’s not to say he didn’t donate more anonymously. I’m proud of Britney for donating and her generosity is to be commended, but trashing Leo because his 50,000 didn’t compare to whoever that year is ridiculous. Donating time and services is also commendable even if your monetary number doesn’t top someone else’s. Kudos to both of them.

  5. Diva says:

    Wasn’t the tsunami thing in 2005? As I recall Leonardo DiCaprio gave more than a million dollars to that charity.

  6. celebitchy says:

    I will look that up you guys and add that to the post. I’m sorry that I just relied on this one story and didn’t do more research on it. I will update the post as I’m not that knowledgable about donation writeoffs for the ultra wealthy. Thanks for letting me know about that.

  7. AC says:

    also, some celebs donat a certain amount for tax benefits so… it works both ways.

  8. zippr says:

    I am trying to understand this, if a celeb has a charitable foundation then isn’t part of the $$$$ donated from contributions/doantions, not directly from the celebrity?
    The foundation would file a tax return and list income and distributions, right? This story is misleading……………

  9. Iva says:

    The story is mis-leading – both of these individuals have Charitable Foundations in their names – so the money being given away from these foundations isn’t money out of the celebrities pocket – these foundations receive donations and raise funds in the celebrities name… As we all know, most celebrities donate on an anonymous basis.

  10. celebitchy says:

    I will be more careful about running items from Fox News in the future. They’re oh-so-reliable.

  11. Iva says:

    I don’t think anyone is blaming you celebitchy for the information – I think we are all questioning it…calling Fox News out on the carpet so to speak.

  12. Busy Body says:

    Fox news is a step near enquirer and star and because they are linked to the fox network, they appear credible but most of their stories are rubbish. I am sure Leo gives more than that and the truth is that it is cheap popularity for a celebrity to advertise their charity work stating in every interview that they give a third of their income to charity and publicising all the adoptions that they do. Even Britney ‘trashy’ spears does not talk about her charity work in interviews. And don’t tell me it is for awareness since you can create awareness without telling the whole world every time you part with a penny.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Busy Body, I agree. The only people who advertise their charity work and show how much money they pretend to give to the charity are Brandangelina and thats why most people are annoyed with them as am I.

  14. celebitchy says:

    Busybody and Anonymous 4:42 pm are the same person, and they also post as mimi, pepper and who knows who else. If you are caught posting under multiple nicknames you will be banned. That is not acceptable.

  15. Fabiola Thing says:


    Frankly, it doesn’t surprise me that she talks to herself. She consistently comes across as being drunk and/or drug addled!

  16. celebitchy says:

    She has been banned. She has also posted under the name “faith.”

  17. Randi says:

    Good on Britney. I respect a celeb who donates and doesn’t look for publicity on it. But then again I would rather she flashed charitable receipts than her nether regions…

  18. xxx says:

    Yes, once you reach a certain income bracket you no longer get any tax benefits for donating. I turned in over $4000 in receipts to our accountant thinking the government would apply some sort of credit but that was incorrect. If Leo is incorprated he can donate money from his corporation tax free but again I don’t know how any journalist would have access to this information. They would have to look at his check book and I don’t think that is possible legally.

  19. paris herpes says:

    Britney is not the one who decides to give to charities, she is probably informed of her options to donate and then decides based on her own whims. She’s from Louisiana, so it makes sense she would give more to Hurricane Katrina relief. You should thank her foundation for coming up with charities to donate to, it doesn’t make Britney a better person or anything. Same goes for Leo.

  20. Jenny says:

    no wonder Leo hates the press!