June 12th, 2014
04:37 PM ET
Keira Knightley's $50,000 allowanceKeira Knightley wants to balance being famous with being a regular Jane. So to keep herself in check and in the land of the "normal," the actress gives herself a $50,000 annual allowance. "I think living an [expensive] lifestyle means you can’t hang out with people who don’t live that lifestyle," Knightley tells Glamour magazine in its July issue. "It alienates you. Some of my best, most hilarious times have been in the least luxurious places." Of course, just because she tries to stick to $50,000 a year doesn't mean she does. "I mean, if I want or need something that goes over that, I get it," Knightley admitted, "but, yes, around that."
« Previous entryCaption this: Kanye West and Kim K.'s wedding photo
 |
  About this blog
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.  |
Self-indulging fluff piece
Keeping an allowance keeps the money real, which is so important. Plenty of celebrities have been in the news for having been famous/wealthy and then losing it all.
When she's shooting a movie her expenses are all covered. Probably her own trailer and meals catered by the film company. If she does 2 movies a year that could be 3-6 months of little to no personal expenses, which would make this easier to pull off. But give her credit, she's worth millions and just the fact that she eschews all that wealth in the name of happiness says a lot.
I'm sure she's talking about money beyond basic living and working expenses.
Personally, I'm blessed with more retirement income than I need to maintain my lifestyle. I keep a budget and 50% of the "extra" money goes into savings to build my nest egg back up after paying cash for a new car and home improvements. The other 50% goes for vacations, hobbies, etc. My 50% isn't anywhere close to $50,000, but it's enough to tell me she's not living a "richestan" lifestyle.
That can't include living expenses. That is probably just "pamper myself" money. In retrospect, I could do some pretty good pampering with that money. Sigh...that ain't never going to happen in my lifetime.
Perhaps this was an allo
wance excluding housing. If so, it would be possible. I know because I live on less than that.
As if!
That would be £30,000 which is nothing.
There's nothing wrong with that! It's better than being a splurging knucklehead then losing it all!