Paying On The Books To Someone Used To Off The Books

[Anonymous]

We are conducting a nanny search, and the candidates we like best have been paid "off the books" in their prior jobs. It is putting us at a real disadvantage because the other employers were not doing things legally. These candidates don't seem to understand the benefits of being paid on the books - that they get Social Security, unemployment insurance, and so on. All they know is that they made $750 a week at their last job, and if I have to pay $1,000+ a week to get them to the same place, then so be it but the tax issue is my hang up. This is for a 40 hour per week job, not a 50 hour job.

There is nothing to be done about it except to pass on those candidates, I guess, but it is very frustrating.

[Anonymous]

I think your higher caliber nannies appreciate being paid legally. But yes, it does cost you more.

[Anonymous]

Just inform them, I will continue to pay you net $750/week and Inform them of the benefits. As long as they are getting their regular net, they'll be fine. I used to be that way until I needed unemployment and I saw the benefits of having taxes deducted!! But I am curious to know where can I find a position where I am paid at least $500/week !! I am apparently looking on the wrong sites :-/

[Anonymous]

The problem is I am not willing to pay $25 an hour. $20, yes. $22 - for a great candidate. But not $25. So I can't offer the same net and pay legally, and I won't pay illegally. I will have to pass on those nannies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is I am not willing to pay $25 an hour. $20, yes. $22 - for a great candidate. But not $25. So I can't offer the same net and pay legally, and I won't pay illegally. I will have to pass on those nannies.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

You're right, I never thought of what it broke down to an hour. Even gross $20/hr breaks down to roughly net $17/hour So that's net $680/week. I not using a calculator, but rough estimates. Find a candidate who's comfortable with your net

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just inform them, I will continue to pay you net $750/week and Inform them of the benefits. As long as they are getting their regular net, they'll be fine. I used to be that way until I needed unemployment and I saw the benefits of having taxes deducted!! But I am curious to know where can I find a position where I am paid at least $500/week !! I am apparently looking on the wrong sites :-/

Paying "net" is a loser's game. How could she possibly know the nanny's tax situation? The net depends on so many things, your deductions, your mortgage, your children, you name it! Never quote a net rate because truthfully, it is simply not in your power to guarantee a certain net rate. You aren't an accountant, and you aren't doing her taxes, so there's no way for an MB to know the net rate of a particular person. Offer a gross rate, let them handle their own taxes like big girls.

[Anonymous]

If only you would hire the "big girls". But the little girl sitters are so much cheaper!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If only you would hire the "big girls". But the little girl sitters are so much cheaper!

This is absurd. OP is talking about paying $20/hr. That is an excellent rate, and deserves zero criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only you would hire the "big girls". But the little girl sitters are so much cheaper!

This is absurd. OP is talking about paying $20/hr. That is an excellent rate, and deserves zero criticism.

Oh good! I can hardly wait to hear about her amazing nanny, in about 2 months. Better yet, why don't you send her someone? That would be super helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are conducting a nanny search, and the candidates we like best have been paid "off the books" in their prior jobs. It is putting us at a real disadvantage because the other employers were not doing things legally. These candidates don't seem to understand the benefits of being paid on the books - that they get Social Security, unemployment insurance, and so on. All they know is that they made $750 a week at their last job, and if I have to pay $1,000+ a week to get them to the same place, then so be it but the tax issue is my hang up. This is for a 40 hour per week job, not a 50 hour job.

There is nothing to be done about it except to pass on those candidates, I guess, but it is very frustrating.

Ask yourself if you really want these people taking care of your child.

[Anonymous]

Exactly! Apparently, lots of DC area parents do. Not everyone is anticipating that "high-profile" appointment someday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly! Apparently, lots of DC area parents do. Not everyone is anticipating that "high-profile" appointment someday.

Some of us still follow the law even without the threat of nanny-gate (poor Kimba Wood; guess she got desperate and gave in).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly! Apparently, lots of DC area parents do. Not everyone is anticipating that "high-profile" appointment someday.

Some of us still follow the law even without the threat of nanny-gate (poor Kimba Wood; guess she got desperate and gave in).

What do you think of the majority of parents who don't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly! Apparently, lots of DC area parents do. Not everyone is anticipating that "high-profile" appointment someday.

Some of us still follow the law even without the threat of nanny-gate (poor Kimba Wood; guess she got desperate and gave in).

What do you think of the majority of parents who don't?

Where is the evidence that the majority don't?