>Cumberbatch
It says he made $2.6M from Dr. Strange. His paydays from movies are on an upward trajectory, so he may crack the $5m/film mark in a few years. Also, I assume this is ordinary income, which is really tax disadvantaged, especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance), which probably means that they pay both sides of the payroll tax.
http://networthtomb.com/benedict-cumberbatch-net-worth-endor...
But these very visible people can wield tremendous influence. The three pillars are power, money, and influence, and you can trade one for the others. Celebrities may not be as powerful as governors or as wealthy as tech billionaires, but their voice often travels much farther than their counterparts.
At least actors don't have to pay state taxes in each state where they "play" like athletes do. Athletes, while often highly paid, really get screwed in just about every way come tax time.
s/make/have
> you're still nowhere near all the Chinese real estate magnates, Saudi oil magnates, the people whose family fortune has been accumulating for the past hundred years or so, etc.
Are you implying those people would be richer than the publicly wealthy we know of (the Walton family, Gates, Buffet etc.)? If that is not the case, I don't think "inconceivable" is the word I would use in this case..
It would take a little over 300 years to earn that much at my current annual income.
I was actually surprised to find that the net worth of many celebrities that most of us imagine as really wealthy is not all that much compared to the aforementioned. For instance, let's pick Benedict Cumberbatch, an actor who just had the lead role in a Marvel movie being shown around the world that a lot of people would immediately recognize on the street - a cursory internet search indicates his net worth is about $20M. Not a crazy amount by any means.