the OSCARS ban the goodie bag!!!
dunkman
Posts: 19,646
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2511237,00.html
For Hollywood film stars they have become a “must-have” perk of being part of glamorous award ceremonies: the lavish goodie bags handed out to presenters, nominees and even members of the celebrity audience at the Oscars and the Golden Globes.
At the 2006 Academy Awards, the “swag bag” was thought to be worth about $100,000 (£50,000), including such perks as a home-cooked meal for ten by the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck, a free Cadillac for two weeks, $7,000 of Victoria’s Secret underwear, and a coupon for Lasik eyecorrecting surgery in LA.
But film stars will leave the 2007 Oscars empty-handed after the intervention of the US taxman, who has declared that the gifts are liable to income tax.
Ed Norton, the Oscarnominated actor and director, has described them as “sick and disgusting”, claiming that they made Hollywood “look ridiculous and out of touch”.
He told New York magazine: “The gift baskets, worth amounts of money that a low-income family could live on for a year, [are given to] people who have so much already. It gets depressing. You sit there, going, ‘This is an embarrassment’.”
why give millionaires gifts they can easily afford themselves?
i think this a brilliant decision by the tax dept which has resulted in this kind of celeb backslapping shit!!
For Hollywood film stars they have become a “must-have” perk of being part of glamorous award ceremonies: the lavish goodie bags handed out to presenters, nominees and even members of the celebrity audience at the Oscars and the Golden Globes.
At the 2006 Academy Awards, the “swag bag” was thought to be worth about $100,000 (£50,000), including such perks as a home-cooked meal for ten by the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck, a free Cadillac for two weeks, $7,000 of Victoria’s Secret underwear, and a coupon for Lasik eyecorrecting surgery in LA.
But film stars will leave the 2007 Oscars empty-handed after the intervention of the US taxman, who has declared that the gifts are liable to income tax.
Ed Norton, the Oscarnominated actor and director, has described them as “sick and disgusting”, claiming that they made Hollywood “look ridiculous and out of touch”.
He told New York magazine: “The gift baskets, worth amounts of money that a low-income family could live on for a year, [are given to] people who have so much already. It gets depressing. You sit there, going, ‘This is an embarrassment’.”
why give millionaires gifts they can easily afford themselves?
i think this a brilliant decision by the tax dept which has resulted in this kind of celeb backslapping shit!!
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I ask myself this everytime I'm looking for a Christmas present for my dad.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
ok, but it's not like the decision was made for altruistic reasons.
"oh noes!!!! we'll have to pay tax!!!"
Probably not too many. In yesterdays am morning new york free paper it spoke of Nick Hambone Lachey picking out loads of free loot from some event and his intentions of giving these items as gifts to his fiance and mom for Xmas. What a fuckin' loser!
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
sorry... i meant it was a brilliant decision by the taxman.. not the Oscar folks.. they are just not giving now as it'll upset the fluffy celebs... which makes them still sycophants.
but bravo to the Tax Office
i know what you can get your dad this year...a sponsorship card...to sponsor me in my unemployment while i look for a job! ha.
from my window to yours