Anonymous wrote:Pay legal. You, the employer will be the one paying the large many thousands of dollar fines from the IRS.

Anonymous wrote:After months of searching, we finally found a great nanny candidate for our baby. She wants to be paid off the books and work about 30 hour weeks. My husband thinks this should operate essentially as an hourly job, and while she will receive paid time off and an insurance stipend, he doesn't want to pay for services we aren't using if we go out of town. We don't travel that much, and furthermore paying year-round is just part of hiring a professional IMO. I think he has sticker shock as this is the top of our budget for childcare but I'm not aware of how any other arrangement would work or how to even broach the subject with her.

Any insights from those who have BTDT? How can I convince him paying during vacation sense given the circumstances?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty big tax penalties for you for paying off the books.

We pay legal for adult caregivers but one of our caregivers did side work off the books for another client. She deposited the cash somewhere regularly. IRS nabbed her. Then the IRS nabbed the employer.

It is a tough market for employers. Treat her well. Pay her well.

There are a lot of risks with paying off the books. If your nanny injures herself in your home, I assume you won’t be able to file an insurance claim on her (since she’s not being employed legally.). Would suggest you find a cheaper daycare and stay legal with your baby’s care

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe your Nanny is receiving subsidized housing or Medicaid and is afraid that if she reports her Nanny wages - then she will be homeless or w/o healthcare which are valid reasons to be afraid.

In order to make sure she can afford a home along w/healthcare you should pay her vacation time for sure.
Also a health insurance stipend so she can get off Medicaid and see a good doctor.

Those aren't "valid" reasons for breaking the law. They are valid reasons to make sure you're offering an attractive enough wage to attract a law abiding nanny.

They're valid to the person who has to choose between eating and living indoors. Or choose between seeing a doctor when they're sick and paying rent. Or choose new shoes when the old ones are worn out and paying the electric bill. Or a hundred other things rich people are fortunate enough not to have to worry about. You don't get to decide what's valid until you start protesting against lack of affordable healthcare and out of control rents and inflation.

All good points. So is the solution to simply pay your child’s caregiver a living wage for this area? But what if she’s an immigrant who will send most of her earnings home (often to support her own biological children), no matter how much you pay her?

Or perhaps hire only an American citizen professional nanny who enjoys a “decent” standard of living with sufficient rent/ mortgage funds and health insurance?

Remember that no one gets to honor all priorities all at once. For wealthier parents, it might be the best possible foundational care regardless of the cost. However, for most parents who make the time to spend on dcum, it’s more likely the “most affordable”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe your Nanny is receiving subsidized housing or Medicaid and is afraid that if she reports her Nanny wages - then she will be homeless or w/o healthcare which are valid reasons to be afraid.

In order to make sure she can afford a home along w/healthcare you should pay her vacation time for sure.
Also a health insurance stipend so she can get off Medicaid and see a good doctor.

Those aren't "valid" reasons for breaking the law. They are valid reasons to make sure you're offering an attractive enough wage to attract a law abiding nanny.

They're valid to the person who has to choose between eating and living indoors. Or choose between seeing a doctor when they're sick and paying rent. Or choose new shoes when the old ones are worn out and paying the electric bill. Or a hundred other things rich people are fortunate enough not to have to worry about. You don't get to decide what's valid until you start protesting against lack of affordable healthcare and out of control rents and inflation.

In that case, why shouldn't the nanny steal from grocery stores. They need to eat. Or borrow someone's car without permission, because they need to get somewhere and don't have a car. Paying taxes above a certain income level is the law. You don't get to decide that the working poor (who often get a lot back in the form of income tax credits) get to evade taxes. Employers who do this are screwing said nanny over because they won't be eligible for unemployment, earn social security credits, or disability pay if they get hurt while working. Not to mention they get to avoid paying employer taxes, which are substantial, which is why some people who pay under the table (aka not paying the taxes required by law) twist themselves into a pretzel trying to make excuses for why they are breaking the law.