live-in nanny payroll

[Anonymous]

Both Breedlove and Intuit are stumped on managing the necessary state tax withholdings from our live-ins lodgings.

Help! Currently accepting any and all recommendations for MD savvy payroll services.

[Anonymous]

You mean you want to deduct the cost of "housing" from her paycheck?

[Anonymous]

I think what OP means is that, as a live-in, the "value" of the room and board provided by your employer are taxable income according to the state and federal government and so they must be given a monetary number and reported as income by the employer and then the employee must pay taxes on that portion of "income" even though the employee gets it in trade, not in cash wages. And she can't figure out how to decide on a number.

It's pretty arbitrary. You can look at what you pay her as a live in and then what you WOULD pay her as a live out and call the difference the value of room and board. That's probably the most accurate way.

[Anonymous]

My hourly rates are the same for live-in and live-out. Either way, I still need to maintain my own residence since most employers have only a modest bedroom and maybe a small closet, to offer.

It would typically be a young woman just moving out of her parents' home, or a college dorm, who could live out of a suitcase in such limited quarters. I happen to be past that stage of my life.

A few nanny employers have large estates with separate living accommodations. In my experience, that's really the only way for employers to have to best of both worlds, retaining the nanny "on site", and offering the nanny enough space and distance, to consider the arrangement to be
a mutually acceptable longterm commitment.

I have had one family offer me a separate condominium unit in their highrise building, as part of my compensation package. For me, only under such circumstances can I consider any possible reduction of my regular fees. Most of these wealthy employers, however, would simply assume comfortable living space to be a job requirement for a professional "live-in" nanny, who is already well-accustomed to her creature comforts. Not every nanny comes from a poor or middle class family, nor does she need to settle for low wages.

If I agree to a live-in position, the significant sacrifice of not having any personal living space (besides a small bedroom), is fair grounds for a higher salary, not lower.

Of course our hired and/or elected government policy makers see it differently, regardless if a "live-in" nanny has to (or "chooses" to) maintain her own separate residence, in order to have more personal space than she'd be allotted in a jail cell. Perhaps our policy makers enjoy the low cost of a live-in nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My hourly rates are the same for live-in and live-out. Either way, I still need to maintain my own residence since most employers have only a modest bedroom and maybe a small closet, to offer.

It would typically be a young woman just moving out of her parents' home, or a college dorm, who could live out of a suitcase in such limited quarters. I happen to be past that stage of my life.

A few nanny employers have large estates with separate living accommodations. In my experience, that's really the only way for employers to have to best of both worlds, retaining the nanny "on site", and offering the nanny enough space and distance, to consider the arrangement to be
a mutually acceptable longterm commitment.

I have had one family offer me a separate condominium unit in their highrise building, as part of my compensation package. For me, only under such circumstances can I consider any possible reduction of my regular fees. Most of these wealthy employers, however, would simply assume comfortable living space to be a job requirement for a professional "live-in" nanny, who is already well-accustomed to her creature comforts. Not every nanny comes from a poor or middle class family, nor does she need to settle for low wages.

If I agree to a live-in position, the significant sacrifice of not having any personal living space (besides a small bedroom), is fair grounds for a higher salary, not lower.

Of course our hired and/or elected government policy makers see it differently, regardless if a "live-in" nanny has to (or "chooses" to) maintain her own separate residence, in order to have more personal space than she'd be allotted in a jail cell. Perhaps our policy makers enjoy the low cost of a live-in nanny.

Not a word of this is responsive to OP's situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hourly rates are the same for live-in and live-out. Either way, I still need to maintain my own residence since most employers have only a modest bedroom and maybe a small closet, to offer.

It would typically be a young woman just moving out of her parents' home, or a college dorm, who could live out of a suitcase in such limited quarters. I happen to be past that stage of my life.

A few nanny employers have large estates with separate living accommodations. In my experience, that's really the only way for employers to have to best of both worlds, retaining the nanny "on site", and offering the nanny enough space and distance, to consider the arrangement to be
a mutually acceptable longterm commitment.

I have had one family offer me a separate condominium unit in their highrise building, as part of my compensation package. For me, only under such circumstances can I consider any possible reduction of my regular fees. Most of these wealthy employers, however, would simply assume comfortable living space to be a job requirement for a professional "live-in" nanny, who is already well-accustomed to her creature comforts. Not every nanny comes from a poor or middle class family, nor does she need to settle for low wages.

If I agree to a live-in position, the significant sacrifice of not having any personal living space (besides a small bedroom), is fair grounds for a higher salary, not lower.

Of course our hired and/or elected government policy makers see it differently, regardless if a "live-in" nanny has to (or "chooses" to) maintain her own separate residence, in order to have more personal space than she'd be allotted in a jail cell. Perhaps our policy makers enjoy the low cost of a live-in nanny.

Not a word of this is responsive to OP's situation.

And you, do you have a live-in?

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter if PP has a live in. 8:51 is off topic and her post irrelevant and unhelpful.

[nannydebsays]

Anonymous wrote:I think what OP means is that, as a live-in, the "value" of the room and board provided by your employer are taxable income according to the state and federal government and so they must be given a monetary number and reported as income by the employer and then the employee must pay taxes on that portion of "income" even though the employee gets it in trade, not in cash wages. And she can't figure out how to decide on a number.

It's pretty arbitrary. You can look at what you pay her as a live in and then what you WOULD pay her as a live out and call the difference the value of room and board. That's probably the most accurate way.

If the above is correct, I would strongly suggest that you value the room and board as low as possible so that your nanny doesn't get screwed over when it comes to her taxes. Maybe $200/month MAX.

I have never heard of room/board being taxable income for a LI, and unless you are in a situation (running for President one day or possibly being nominated to the Cabinet or the Supreme Court) that demands you be absolutely scrupulous about your household employee taxes, you might want to drop this idea. It's a guaranteed way to mess up your relationship with your LI nanny, IMO. Any time you increase an employee's tax burden without actually giving them more money in hand, you're going to sour that relationship.

[Anonymous]

No nanny that I've ever heard of, would allow you to charge her for the privilege of listening to your kids running around (on your hardwood floors) over her head as she tries to sleep past 6am on the weekends, in your hole-in-wall basement.

[Anonymous]

No nanny that I've ever heard of, would allow you to charge her for the privilege of listening to your kids running around (on your hardwood floors) over her head as she tries to sleep past 6am on the weekends, in your hole-in-wall basement.

You seem to be confused about nanny live in rates. The hourly rate is due to the value of the live in space as being a part of the total compensation package. This is why live ins make a lower hourly wage. If you don't like the trade in value for housing, don't take a live in job. It's crazy to think that housing should be free on top of the salary.

[nannydebsays]

Anonymous wrote:

No nanny that I've ever heard of, would allow you to charge her for the privilege of listening to your kids running around (on your hardwood floors) over her head as she tries to sleep past 6am on the weekends, in your hole-in-wall basement.

You seem to be confused about nanny live in rates. The hourly rate is due to the value of the live in space as being a part of the total compensation package. This is why live ins make a lower hourly wage. If you don't like the trade in value for housing, don't take a live in job. It's crazy to think that housing should be free on top of the salary.

Yes, the trade off for FREE housing is a certain lack of privacy and additional noise. I'm not sure that TAXING those inconveniences is really all that smart though. It really erases any benefit of being a LI for the affected nanny, don't you think?

Say nanny could make $15/hour plus OT at her 55 hour a week job as a LO, but she accepts $12/hour and no OT to be a LI. She's now gone from a gross weekly income of $937.50 to a gross weekly income of $660, and her employer is going to add in her room and board estimated cost to her tax liability? Why would nanny then LI? I am guessing that for $1100+ a month, she might be able to find a liveable apartment somewhere, right? And her additional commute is made up for by her not living at work and being "asked" to work late all the time, or being told the bosses need her to watch the kids for "just an hour or so" every time she stays around on her off days.

[Anonymous]

I'm the second PP you quoted, nanny deb, and I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Some nannies may let you have a slightly discounted rate depending on how much they like your available accommodations and the noise level during her "off" hours.
If she can't sleep when she wants to on her weekends, you should pay her extra to accommodate you and your loud kids.

[Anonymous]

Some nannies may let you have a slightly discounted rate depending on how much they like your available accommodations and the noise level during her "off" hours.
If she can't sleep when she wants to on her weekends, you should pay her extra to accommodate you and your loud kids.

that's funny. Nice work with the sarcasm, PP! We could use a little more funny around here!

[Anonymous]

So what you're saying is that live-out nannies should have to pay taxes on every penny they earn, then turn around and pay rent, food, utilities. But live ins should be able to basically get those items for free and then NOT have to pay taxes on the value of that? Seems pretty unfair to the live out nanny.