YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
1–10 of 325 posts
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#2> 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.
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#3> 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.
Parents own the child duh
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#4[deleted]
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#5> 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.
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#6> 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.
Presumably depends on the jurisdiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Child_Actor%27s_Bil...
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#7> 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.
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.
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#8> 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.
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.
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#9> 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.
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.
Re: YouTube top earners: A seven-year-old making $22M
#10I wonder if these guess at the income of internet celebrates could some how hurt them when doing taxes.