Wow. No discussion about the death of the AP program here?

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how the MA case dictates what can be deducted/credited for room and board when the cost of living varies so much throughout the state. Clearly, room and board is much more expensive if one lives in the city of Boston rather than in the suburbs.

These Department of Labor FAQs are helpful. Wouldn't DOL rules/guidance on this trump the state/circuit?


https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/direct-care/credit-wages/faq#13

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how the MA case dictates what can be deducted/credited for room and board when the cost of living varies so much throughout the state. Clearly, room and board is much more expensive if one lives in the city of Boston rather than in the suburbs.

These Department of Labor FAQs are helpful. Wouldn't DOL rules/guidance on this trump the state/circuit?


https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/direct-care/credit-wages/faq#13

No, the ruling is very specific about what can be deducted and what can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how the MA case dictates what can be deducted/credited for room and board when the cost of living varies so much throughout the state. Clearly, room and board is much more expensive if one lives in the city of Boston rather than in the suburbs.

These Department of Labor FAQs are helpful. Wouldn't DOL rules/guidance on this trump the state/circuit?


https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/direct-care/credit-wages/faq#13

No, the ruling is very specific about what can be deducted and what can’t.

Actually it’s not clear at all - they were discussing historic deduction rates when it was assumed that state minimum wage laws didn’t apply (e.g., historically they didn’t have different locality pairs or deduction rates for room and board because it was administratively easier), it’s not clear whether the historic deduction rates still apply with these new state minimum wage and overtime rules apply. Similarly the agreement is silent on additional withholdings (auto, phone, gym, etc.) and seems to impose HFs with duty of state withholding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

Not a lot, very few actually.

And yes, it is easy to find live in childcare, it is just not easy to find one as cheap as an AuPair.

Most of the families I know who have APs (including us) want specific language immersion that is unavailable in the local nanny market. We did look and advertise for a nanny who speaks the target language for full-time care. No takers in DC. Now, maybe DC is different than other places, but I suspect that there are other cities where language skills are also important.

Its actually pretty easy to see if you are on any of the matching FB groups that are country wide with thousands of members that very few are looking for a specific language. Nearly all of them are looking for a target start date and a vast majority are looking for solid drivers. Sure, some are (My kids speak German, and we hire German APs, but NONE of them have ever consistently spoke German with them, as ALL of them have wanted to improve their English).

Prior to having an AP, going to German school was the best immersion we could have paid for. Way better than a AP with a strong south German accent, which we decidedly do NOT want our kids to develop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

Not a lot, very few actually.

And yes, it is easy to find live in childcare, it is just not easy to find one as cheap as an AuPair.

Most of the families I know who have APs (including us) want specific language immersion that is unavailable in the local nanny market. We did look and advertise for a nanny who speaks the target language for full-time care. No takers in DC. Now, maybe DC is different than other places, but I suspect that there are other cities where language skills are also important.

Its actually pretty easy to see if you are on any of the matching FB groups that are country wide with thousands of members that very few are looking for a specific language. Nearly all of them are looking for a target start date and a vast majority are looking for solid drivers. Sure, some are (My kids speak German, and we hire German APs, but NONE of them have ever consistently spoke German with them, as ALL of them have wanted to improve their English).

Prior to having an AP, going to German school was the best immersion we could have paid for. Way better than a AP with a strong south German accent, which we decidedly do NOT want our kids to develop.

Well, you sound like a bit of a snob (south German accent, egads!). We screen heavily for APs who will only speak the target language - and have never had an issue: it wouldn't be good for the AP's English to speak with toddlers in their pidgin English, and it wouldn't be good for the toddlers' English to learn mistakes from the AP. All of our friends in AP program send their kids to immersion elementary schools, so again, this might be an urban/DC thing. Not sure. We could not find a nanny with the necessary language skills - and many nannies in DC refuse to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

Not a lot, very few actually.

And yes, it is easy to find live in childcare, it is just not easy to find one as cheap as an AuPair.

Most of the families I know who have APs (including us) want specific language immersion that is unavailable in the local nanny market. We did look and advertise for a nanny who speaks the target language for full-time care. No takers in DC. Now, maybe DC is different than other places, but I suspect that there are other cities where language skills are also important.

Its actually pretty easy to see if you are on any of the matching FB groups that are country wide with thousands of members that very few are looking for a specific language. Nearly all of them are looking for a target start date and a vast majority are looking for solid drivers. Sure, some are (My kids speak German, and we hire German APs, but NONE of them have ever consistently spoke German with them, as ALL of them have wanted to improve their English).

Prior to having an AP, going to German school was the best immersion we could have paid for. Way better than a AP with a strong south German accent, which we decidedly do NOT want our kids to develop.

Well, you sound like a bit of a snob (south German accent, egads!). We screen heavily for APs who will only speak the target language - and have never had an issue: it wouldn't be good for the AP's English to speak with toddlers in their pidgin English, and it wouldn't be good for the toddlers' English to learn mistakes from the AP. All of our friends in AP program send their kids to immersion elementary schools, so again, this might be an urban/DC thing. Not sure. We could not find a nanny with the necessary language skills - and many nannies in DC refuse to drive.

Your limited anecdotal experience is unusual. Even in DC, which is where I live, and with children in German school, on the rematch pages, very few are looking for a specific language. We had a live nanny for 6 years and had no problem finding a driver and a US citizen. However, she did not come at cheap AuPair rates, that is for sure.

Not sure why people are so offended that the AP program is cheap on demand childcare. It is what it is, parents get cheap live in childcare, an AP gets to live in another country. Massachusetts is changing that an parents in that state are dropping out because their once cheap childcare is no longer cheap. They can get a nanny for a similar price. There is very good reason that you cannot bring a childcare worker in on a normal work visa because these jobs are easily filled by Americans. This is why the nannies are in an uproar about the AP program. It drives their wages down and they have less opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

Not a lot, very few actually.

And yes, it is easy to find live in childcare, it is just not easy to find one as cheap as an AuPair.

Most of the families I know who have APs (including us) want specific language immersion that is unavailable in the local nanny market. We did look and advertise for a nanny who speaks the target language for full-time care. No takers in DC. Now, maybe DC is different than other places, but I suspect that there are other cities where language skills are also important.

Its actually pretty easy to see if you are on any of the matching FB groups that are country wide with thousands of members that very few are looking for a specific language. Nearly all of them are looking for a target start date and a vast majority are looking for solid drivers. Sure, some are (My kids speak German, and we hire German APs, but NONE of them have ever consistently spoke German with them, as ALL of them have wanted to improve their English).

Prior to having an AP, going to German school was the best immersion we could have paid for. Way better than a AP with a strong south German accent, which we decidedly do NOT want our kids to develop.

Well, you sound like a bit of a snob (south German accent, egads!). We screen heavily for APs who will only speak the target language - and have never had an issue: it wouldn't be good for the AP's English to speak with toddlers in their pidgin English, and it wouldn't be good for the toddlers' English to learn mistakes from the AP. All of our friends in AP program send their kids to immersion elementary schools, so again, this might be an urban/DC thing. Not sure. We could not find a nanny with the necessary language skills - and many nannies in DC refuse to drive.

Your limited anecdotal experience is unusual. Even in DC, which is where I live, and with children in German school, on the rematch pages, very few are looking for a specific language. We had a live nanny for 6 years and had no problem finding a driver and a US citizen. However, she did not come at cheap AuPair rates, that is for sure.

Not sure why people are so offended that the AP program is cheap on demand childcare. It is what it is, parents get cheap live in childcare, an AP gets to live in another country. Massachusetts is changing that an parents in that state are dropping out because their once cheap childcare is no longer cheap. They can get a nanny for a similar price. There is very good reason that you cannot bring a childcare worker in on a normal work visa because these jobs are easily filled by Americans. This is why the nannies are in an uproar about the AP program. It drives their wages down and they have less opportunity.

I think your personal bias is your answer. For people who care about certain languages, they cannot just find someone from a rematch page, they are instead looking at out of country matches - we have rematched once - and never considered looking at a rematch page - all of our available candidates were out of country. Not sure why you are so personally offended that others do not find the AP program to be cheap care. For everything for an AP year, we paid about 30k. This is less than a nanny, but a lot more than a nanny share or a daycare. Hosting an AP as if she were a true family member (lots of cultural exchange, perks, etc.) is actually quite expensive. It is certainly more flexible care than any other option, but of course APs also prefer to be in a household with a fixed schedule. Illegal labor is the biggest driver of suppressed wages for nannies - not the few thousand APs that come in every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

Not a lot, very few actually.

And yes, it is easy to find live in childcare, it is just not easy to find one as cheap as an AuPair.

Most of the families I know who have APs (including us) want specific language immersion that is unavailable in the local nanny market. We did look and advertise for a nanny who speaks the target language for full-time care. No takers in DC. Now, maybe DC is different than other places, but I suspect that there are other cities where language skills are also important.

Its actually pretty easy to see if you are on any of the matching FB groups that are country wide with thousands of members that very few are looking for a specific language. Nearly all of them are looking for a target start date and a vast majority are looking for solid drivers. Sure, some are (My kids speak German, and we hire German APs, but NONE of them have ever consistently spoke German with them, as ALL of them have wanted to improve their English).

Prior to having an AP, going to German school was the best immersion we could have paid for. Way better than a AP with a strong south German accent, which we decidedly do NOT want our kids to develop.

Well, you sound like a bit of a snob (south German accent, egads!). We screen heavily for APs who will only speak the target language - and have never had an issue: it wouldn't be good for the AP's English to speak with toddlers in their pidgin English, and it wouldn't be good for the toddlers' English to learn mistakes from the AP. All of our friends in AP program send their kids to immersion elementary schools, so again, this might be an urban/DC thing. Not sure. We could not find a nanny with the necessary language skills - and many nannies in DC refuse to drive.

Your limited anecdotal experience is unusual. Even in DC, which is where I live, and with children in German school, on the rematch pages, very few are looking for a specific language. We had a live nanny for 6 years and had no problem finding a driver and a US citizen. However, she did not come at cheap AuPair rates, that is for sure.

Not sure why people are so offended that the AP program is cheap on demand childcare. It is what it is, parents get cheap live in childcare, an AP gets to live in another country. Massachusetts is changing that an parents in that state are dropping out because their once cheap childcare is no longer cheap. They can get a nanny for a similar price. There is very good reason that you cannot bring a childcare worker in on a normal work visa because these jobs are easily filled by Americans. This is why the nannies are in an uproar about the AP program. It drives their wages down and they have less opportunity.

As you keep hearing on here, it is NOT easy to find Americans for part-time child care. We've had both APs and nannys/babysitters: our babysitters quit at the drop of a hat or would just tell me they couldn't work certain days because they had better things to do, like shopping for a dress for a friend's wedding in one case.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the au pair program is cheap, and I also agree it’s freaking impossible to find a reliable person to work an au pair split shift with end time flexibility (as in some nights 6, other nights 8:30). It’s not just about money. Normal adults don’t want this wonky schedule. They want to have a life. But an au pair is in a stage of life when free hours all day to explore a city is fine. For a limited period of time anyway. It’s just a crappy lifestyle past a year or two, when normal people want to have a spouse, kids, whatever.

[Anonymous]

The Massachusetts decision is not shifting more jobs to American citizans. Most Americans can't afford a legal full time Nanny (60 to 70K plus yearly with fed/state/unemployment/liability/expected bonuses/holiday and leave coverage). What this decision does is push working families away from a legal, state department sanctioned program into hiring nannies and caregivers who are not legal to work in this country and those who insist on being paid under the table. There are no winners here.

[Anonymous]

It amuses me to read all the “nannies are excited to now get access to all the AP jobs!” posts. Nannies are fully aware that families who choose to use APs are either not willing or not able to afford MA nanny wages. From what I understand, nannies in MA earn $15-40 per hour. I bet very very few AP families will be hiring nannies.

The real excitement is going to be among daycare owners of all kinds. That is the market the AP families will be looking at expanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It amuses me to read all the “nannies are excited to now get access to all the AP jobs!” posts. Nannies are fully aware that families who choose to use APs are either not willing or not able to afford MA nanny wages. From what I understand, nannies in MA earn $15-40 per hour. I bet very very few AP families will be hiring nannies.

The real excitement is going to be among daycare owners of all kinds. That is the market the AP families will be looking at expanding.

+1 aftercare programs will get lot of business as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how the MA case dictates what can be deducted/credited for room and board when the cost of living varies so much throughout the state. Clearly, room and board is much more expensive if one lives in the city of Boston rather than in the suburbs.

These Department of Labor FAQs are helpful. Wouldn't DOL rules/guidance on this trump the state/circuit?


https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/direct-care/credit-wages/faq#13

No, the ruling is very specific about what can be deducted and what can’t.

Actually it’s not clear at all - they were discussing historic deduction rates when it was assumed that state minimum wage laws didn’t apply (e.g., historically they didn’t have different locality pairs or deduction rates for room and board because it was administratively easier), it’s not clear whether the historic deduction rates still apply with these new state minimum wage and overtime rules apply. Similarly the agreement is silent on additional withholdings (auto, phone, gym, etc.) and seems to impose HFs with duty of state withholding.

“ $35/week for room and $40/week for board” is pretty clear... and no, you can’t deduct anything else, unless you say something in the ruling that would allow you to do so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how the MA case dictates what can be deducted/credited for room and board when the cost of living varies so much throughout the state. Clearly, room and board is much more expensive if one lives in the city of Boston rather than in the suburbs.

These Department of Labor FAQs are helpful. Wouldn't DOL rules/guidance on this trump the state/circuit?


https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/direct-care/credit-wages/faq#13

No, the ruling is very specific about what can be deducted and what can’t.

Actually it’s not clear at all - they were discussing historic deduction rates when it was assumed that state minimum wage laws didn’t apply (e.g., historically they didn’t have different locality pairs or deduction rates for room and board because it was administratively easier), it’s not clear whether the historic deduction rates still apply with these new state minimum wage and overtime rules apply. Similarly the agreement is silent on additional withholdings (auto, phone, gym, etc.) and seems to impose HFs with duty of state withholding.

“ $35/week for room and $40/week for board” is pretty clear... and no, you can’t deduct anything else, unless you say something in the ruling that would allow you to do so?

They were talking about historic rates - dicta - there is no hold about current rates of deduction WHEN there is a state minimum. Similarly, the case has no holding on OTHER deductions or state withholding. The AG’s office says anything you would deduct for a non-AP worker can be deducted. So, you cannot deduct ALL of car insurance or ALL of phone plan, but can deduct a portion for personal use - because she is similarly required to pay tax on a portion. You can deduct ALL of a gym plan, and she has to pay tax on it. Any flight you book home for her to visit family, you can deduct, and she has to pay tax.

[Anonymous]

I'm a former HM in MoCo considering getting another AP. MoCo minimum wage is about to be $13 for small employers. (I think that's what a household would fall under?) Does this mean I'd have to pay the AP $13/ hr? What would the deduction be? I'm in upcounty so I can get a nanny for cheaper than in the city and trying to decide. For a 40 hour work week, the agency fee works out to about $5/hr. So I could pay a nanny that much more over the AP and it would be a wash (plus no paying for food, phone, etc). I'm thinking at this point a nanny is cheaper.