I'm just going to scrap the analogy because apparently subtlety is lost on you. Celebrities, almost any of them, could eliminate the need for an entire charity through one donation without even making a dent in their own savings, if they wanted to. There are so, so many issues in modern society that straight up don't need to exist, but do, because those with the power to actually make a difference hoard most of their wealth and choose to live like royalty instead. Granted, this issue isn't just with celebrities, but the point still stands. It doesn't matter how much other people have, if you're capable of removing the issue and you're asking everyone else for help, you're an asshole.
In a high school geography class once, my teacher asked the class to get into groups and work on the solution to a single question: "What is the main reason for the existence of world hunger?". And the groups gave various answers, because the question was asked so it must have had a solution. Lack of farmable soil in certain regions, droughts, war, border control issues, etc. My group was the only one that got it right. It was a trick question, there is no reason. No rational, logical reason for it to exist. One billionaire could solve world hunger in a weekend, and they CHOOSE NOT TO.