Jackie Coogan was one of the first child stars on silent screen. As a child star, Coogan earned an estimated $3 to $4 million ($48 million to $65 million adjusted for 2012 dollars), but the money was spent by his mother and stepfather, Arthur Bernstein, on such extravagances as fur coats, diamonds, and expensive cars. Coogans mother and stepfather claimed Jackie was having fun and thought he was playing. She stated, No promises were ever made to give Jackie anything. Every dollar a kid earns before he is 21 belongs to his parents. Jackie will not get a cent of his earnings, and claimed that Jackie was a bad boy. Coogan sued them in 1938, but, after legal expenses, received only $126,000 ($2,111,000 in 2014) of the approximately $250,000 remaining of his earnings. When Coogan fell on hard times and asked Charlie Chaplin for assistance, Chaplin gave him $1,000 without hesitation. The legal battle brought attention to child actors and resulted in the enactment of the California Child Actors Bill, often called the Coogan Law or the Coogan Act. This requires that a child actors employer set aside 15% of the earnings in a trust (often called a Coogan Account), and codifies such issues as schooling, work hours and time-off. Under Libertartarianism, do we lose this government regulation so the job creators (Jackies Parents) dont get hassled to lose the money they earned? once child labor is completely legal again? If not, how much are the entitled to of the childs income? 90%? 100%?
Posted on: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:19:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015