Trending Now: Alyssa Milano says most actors are not rich and outrage over celebrity GoFundMe misses the bigger picture – Fans React

When I first saw the backlash over a fundraiser connected to the death of Eric Dane, my initial reaction was not sympathy. It was skepticism. Hollywood asking the public for money rarely lands well.

Then Alyssa Milano stepped in. Milano, who worked with Dane on Charmed, defended the fundraiser and argued that most working actors are not wealthy. She pushed back on the idea that “celebrity” automatically equals financial security, suggesting the outrage was aimed at the wrong target.

I don’t fully agree with her framing. But I’m also not sure the critics are entirely right either.

Why the backlash makes sense

Let’s be honest. When people hear “actor” or see a recognizable name, they picture red carpets, designer wardrobes and multimillion-dollar contracts. In a moment when many Americans are struggling with rising costs, the optics of a GoFundMe tied to a celebrity name can feel tone deaf.

That reaction is not irrational. It’s rooted in economic anxiety and a widening wealth gap that people experience daily.

But fame is not always fortune

Where Milano may have a point is in the industry’s financial structure. The entertainment business is famously top heavy. A handful of stars command enormous paydays. Thousands of working actors do not. Residual payments have shifted in the streaming era. Jobs are often short term. Consistency is rare.

Visibility does not always translate into long term financial stability. But is the public obligated to close that gap? That’s the question critics are really asking.

The problem is perception

A celebrity becomes a symbol of wealth, even if their personal finances do not reflect that assumption. Milano’s argument forces an uncomfortable distinction between the ultra rich elite and the broader community of working performers.

Still, perception matters. When the public sees a fundraiser attached to someone they recognize, it triggers broader frustration about inequality. It becomes less about one grieving family and more about a system that already feels economically upside down.

Two truths can exist

I don’t think critics are wrong to question optics. Public trust erodes quickly when financial privilege appears out of touch. At the same time, Milano’s broader point challenges a lazy assumption: that every actor lives in a mansion and never worries about bills. Critics argue if it is the public’s responsibility to pay for bills that every family struggles with after the death of a loved one.

Both things can be true. The optics can be uncomfortable. And the financial reality can be more complicated than we assume.

The bigger picture

What this debate really reveals is how deeply we equate fame with wealth. It’s a shortcut our culture has reinforced for decades. But the entertainment industry, like most industries, has layers.

Milano is asking the public to see those layers. Whether people are ready to accept that is another story. In the end, the outrage may say more about our frustration with inequality than about the fundraisers.

And that bigger picture is worth examining — even if it doesn’t neatly resolve the discomfort.