Hacker News Reader

Comment by ravenstine | Hacker News Reader

> As he is still a child, 15% of Ryan's earnings are put into a bank account that he can only access when he becomes a legal adult.

Why 15%? Why not 100%? Why not even 50%?

Should this sit right with me? I want to believe this child isn't being exploited.

EDIT: Thanks for clearing that up for me. It seems I was misunderstanding.

View on HN

It says 15% OF this earnings, he might be getting more than that but 15% is locked up until he is an adult.

Even so, the parents are probably the actual 'runners' of the company (?) doing all the work except being on camera. Meaning administrative work, accounting, filming, editing, marketing maybe and so on.

Exactly, it's not like the kid is writing the scripts, creating the sets, buying the equipment, paying for lawyers, settings up advertiser deals, paying for video production and editing, etc. From the videos, it seems like they've now got a much fancier house too, which I'm assuming was paid with the earnings.

The parents are on camera a lot as well. The kid is just playing with stuff, the parents are doing all of the work.

The parents are the producers. Literally.

From the Wikipedia page, only 15% of the child’s earnings need to be put aside into a trust:

“This law requires a child actor's employer to set aside 15% of the earnings in a trust (often called a Coogan Account), and codifies issues such as schooling, work hours and time off.”

Seems like it should be more.

How much does this apply to a child employed by his own parents? I know the normal child labor laws don't apply -- at all -- in that case.

For those wondering the same thing as me:

http://www.perennialfinancialservices.com/blog/thank-uncle-f...

This doesn't mean that the parents get the other 85%. All the income belongs to the child, the 15% figure is put in a trust as a requirement by California law and cannot be accessed until the child turns 18.

The article doesn't say that more than 15% is put in trust, or that the child is spending $XXX,000 on himself.

Of course, the child also isn't generating the whole business himself either.

Are you sure? Seems like the parents are really the "producers" and the kid is more of an actor. He very well might get a lot of that money, but I'm not sure. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Is there any reason to give an 8 year old child access to (his) millions of dollars?

https://bonniejwallace.com/who-gets-the-money-when-a-child-a...

Presumably depends on the jurisdiction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Child_Actor%27s_Bil...

Invest for much better gains.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com