2% payroll tax hurt us more especialy if you have a nanny, did you give nanny a raise?

[Anonymous]

To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

Are you saying your salary is the same as your nanny's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

Are you saying your salary is the same as your nanny's?

No, we make more then 116k each but not by that much so it did hurt. Not all of us make 500k a year.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/5-ways-counter-impact-payroll-tax-hike-1B7956613

[Anonymous]

Well aren't you out of touch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

No, you experienced an increase in income the past two years. It was temporary for the past two years and all they did was revert back to the old %. I can't believe how so many people think that it wasn't going to be temporary.

[Anonymous]

Are you going to give your nanny a raise every time her taxes go up?

[Anonymous]

Having employees is expensive, didn't you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

No, you experienced an increase in income the past two years. It was temporary for the past two years and all they did was revert back to the old %. I can't believe how so many people think that it wasn't going to be temporary.

Temporary or whatever I am wondering what people did with their nannies? We hired her last year and it was during the payroll tax break so this year rather than cutting her pay we gave her the difference.

did everyone cut their nanny's pay?

[Anonymous]

Nanny here...My net pay decreased just as my employers' pay did. I've been with my current family for 3 1/2 years though so I enjoyed the increased net pay during the temporary tax holiday. I didn't think much of it when the tax holiday expired and my net pay dropped a bit.

What you did was thoughtful, but she's essentially getting her own tax holiday by you covering the 2% that should be getting deducted each week. You wouldn't have been cutting her pay. It's her responsibility as a legal resident or citizen of this country to contribute her fair share of taxes, and as such it would have been fair for her net pay to decrease to reflect the expiration of the tax holiday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

No, you experienced an increase in income the past two years. It was temporary for the past two years and all they did was revert back to the old %. I can't believe how so many people think that it wasn't going to be temporary.

Not an unreasonable expectation given the frequency with which many "temporary" provisions are extended.

Moreover, in the two years previously, the Make Work Pay cut had been in effect so the overall impact of a reduced payroll tax was 4 years, not 2. That's a pretty long time and easy to become accustomed to.

Giving snotty answers like "you should have KNOWN it was only temporary" is both elitist, assumes financial literacy that most people lack, and ignores the way people really think and behave. Don't be such a policy wonk and understand how people really live their lives and manage their finances once in a while. You only sound smug when you do that. Maybe you intend to, but it's really unbecoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

No, you experienced an increase in income the past two years. It was temporary for the past two years and all they did was revert back to the old %. I can't believe how so many people think that it wasn't going to be temporary.

Not an unreasonable expectation given the frequency with which many "temporary" provisions are extended.

Moreover, in the two years previously, the Make Work Pay cut had been in effect so the overall impact of a reduced payroll tax was 4 years, not 2. That's a pretty long time and easy to become accustomed to.

Giving snotty answers like "you should have KNOWN it was only temporary" is both elitist, assumes financial literacy that most people lack, and ignores the way people really think and behave. Don't be such a policy wonk and understand how people really live their lives and manage their finances once in a while. You only sound smug when you do that. Maybe you intend to, but it's really unbecoming.

First of all, the OP was elitist when she complained about the 2% "increase" in taxes she had to pay to her domestic worker. Secondly, the things that are "temporary" that turn out not be are usually things that people wanted to be permanent in the first place and settled for temporary to get it passed. Then they work to extend extend extend. The 2% FICA tax holiday was never ever intended to be more than a temporary thing.

FTR, I don't have to look far to see people managing finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

No, you experienced an increase in income the past two years. It was temporary for the past two years and all they did was revert back to the old %. I can't believe how so many people think that it wasn't going to be temporary.

Not an unreasonable expectation given the frequency with which many "temporary" provisions are extended.

Moreover, in the two years previously, the Make Work Pay cut had been in effect so the overall impact of a reduced payroll tax was 4 years, not 2. That's a pretty long time and easy to become accustomed to.

Giving snotty answers like "you should have KNOWN it was only temporary" is both elitist, assumes financial literacy that most people lack, and ignores the way people really think and behave. Don't be such a policy wonk and understand how people really live their lives and manage their finances once in a while. You only sound smug when you do that. Maybe you intend to, but it's really unbecoming.

First of all, the OP was elitist when she complained about the 2% "increase" in taxes she had to pay to her domestic worker. Secondly, the things that are "temporary" that turn out not be are usually things that people wanted to be permanent in the first place and settled for temporary to get it passed. Then they work to extend extend extend. The 2% FICA tax holiday was never ever intended to be more than a temporary thing.

FTR, I don't have to look far to see people managing finances.

I didnt get that from the OP. I would also be frustrated if I had a 2% decrease in income and also increase the nanny's income 2%.

[Anonymous]

If your employer didn't give you a 2% raise then why did you feel the need to give your nanny a 2% raise? Same relationship.

[Anonymous]

FICA is not a tax...ask any republican. The only tax is income tax. So you all are just making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair we basically gave our nanny a 2% raise to cover the payroll tax.

We experienced a 2% decline in income.

This sucks and I am surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Did you give your nanny the raise or cut her take home?

No, you experienced an increase in income the past two years. It was temporary for the past two years and all they did was revert back to the old %. I can't believe how so many people think that it wasn't going to be temporary.

Not an unreasonable expectation given the frequency with which many "temporary" provisions are extended.

Moreover, in the two years previously, the Make Work Pay cut had been in effect so the overall impact of a reduced payroll tax was 4 years, not 2. That's a pretty long time and easy to become accustomed to.

Giving snotty answers like "you should have KNOWN it was only temporary" is both elitist, assumes financial literacy that most people lack, and ignores the way people really think and behave. Don't be such a policy wonk and understand how people really live their lives and manage their finances once in a while. You only sound smug when you do that. Maybe you intend to, but it's really unbecoming.

First of all, the OP was elitist when she complained about the 2% "increase" in taxes she had to pay to her domestic worker. Secondly, the things that are "temporary" that turn out not be are usually things that people wanted to be permanent in the first place and settled for temporary to get it passed. Then they work to extend extend extend. The 2% FICA tax holiday was never ever intended to be more than a temporary thing.

FTR, I don't have to look far to see people managing finances.

I didnt get that from the OP. I would also be frustrated if I had a 2% decrease in income and also increase the nanny's income 2%.

I guess I have trouble with someone whose household income is over $225k complaining about a 2% to her nanny's cost.. We took a permanent 20% hit two years ago and we weren't close to $225k. We haven't had trouble dealing with the 2% "decrease".