I really don't understand this line of thinking. Are old people incapable of spending money? Is what they chose to do with capital of less consequence? Even if they do have one foot in the grave, they have a right to legacy.
This comment is only on survival costs and age. Legacies are outside the scope of this comment. William Shatner's survival costs, having been paid-for long ago, are outside the scope of this comment.
Plus, he's Kirk. He can still get the public's attention when he wants to.
What are they going to spend money on? William Shattner is 86 years old.
> Even if they do have one foot in the grave, they have a right to legacy.
Uh... Who cares? You are talking about something that has no value.
I'm sure shattner would trade all of his money to be 20 years old again.