AF-AM Group: At what point should an entertainer give him/herself up to financial servitude?

Recently, the mention of Beyonce buying a 90 mil has caused a lot of "concern" among certain DUers who feel it could have been spent on other social causes and a few that are concerned that someone could make that much money.

So my question is, at what point should Beyonce stop taking a percentage of the proceeds of her various products and start doing stuff without receiving compensation (Mhmm, I think there was a word for that.)?

Forbes places her at 340m in income this year, a chunk of which comes from her extremely successful 250mil Formation World Tour. So should she be a 240m slave, only being allowed to keep 100mil of her earned income or a modest 300m slave? How much of their hard earned income are the descendants of slaves allowed to keep in America before being cast back into servitude?

It's a serious question. I support liberal policies, but on the otherhand, the moment I'm paying more than 50% of my income in taxes, I'm going to be rallying for a huge change in direction in the party. I personally refuse to work for less than a majority of my income and frankly, it pisses me off when DU goes on a tizzy about a black performer or our president (President Obama) making exactly what the market will pay them for their services.