Immigration reform and the nanny market

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:Yes, 09:46, but since 85 - 90% of parents refuse to pay on the books or are willing to hire a nanny who refuses to be paid on the books, the greater supply theory doesn't really fit here.

Unless, of course, the Federal Government finally puts some teeth in the household employer laws WRT the IRS. Parents (or nannies) facing jail time for paying illegally would probably up the number of jobs only "legal" workers could take.

Where are you getting your figures?

[nannydebsays]

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:Yes, 09:46, but since 85 - 90% of parents refuse to pay on the books or are willing to hire a nanny who refuses to be paid on the books, the greater supply theory doesn't really fit here.

Unless, of course, the Federal Government finally puts some teeth in the household employer laws WRT the IRS. Parents (or nannies) facing jail time for paying illegally would probably up the number of jobs only "legal" workers could take.

Where are you getting your figures?

I'm quoting nanny tax business owners. I'm sure more people pay legally if they are at risk of losing their jobs/professional standing if they hire illegally, but DC is not the norm.

[Anonymous]

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:Yes, 09:46, but since 85 - 90% of parents refuse to pay on the books or are willing to hire a nanny who refuses to be paid on the books, the greater supply theory doesn't really fit here.

Unless, of course, the Federal Government finally puts some teeth in the household employer laws WRT the IRS. Parents (or nannies) facing jail time for paying illegally would probably up the number of jobs only "legal" workers could take.

Where are you getting your figures?

I'm quoting nanny tax business owners. I'm sure more people pay legally if they are at risk of losing their jobs/professional standing if they hire illegally, but DC is not the norm.

Maybe just a bit self-serving of them?
No one really has any idea how many, or what percentage of, parents are evading taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:Yes, 09:46, but since 85 - 90% of parents refuse to pay on the books or are willing to hire a nanny who refuses to be paid on the books, the greater supply theory doesn't really fit here.

Unless, of course, the Federal Government finally puts some teeth in the household employer laws WRT the IRS. Parents (or nannies) facing jail time for paying illegally would probably up the number of jobs only "legal" workers could take.

Where are you getting your figures?

I'm quoting nanny tax business owners. I'm sure more people pay legally if they are at risk of losing their jobs/professional standing if they hire illegally, but DC is not the norm.

Maybe just a bit self-serving of them?
No one really has any idea how many, or what percentage of, parents are evading taxes.

I don't use a nanny tax service. I use an accountant and have friends that do all the paperwork themselves. Doubt we're being counted in these estimates either. Data sounds sketchy.

[Anonymous]

As a former California nanny, I worked for one family off the books and one family on the books. The one off the books, I was a very young nanny and was just happy to be getting paid. When I was looking for a job in California the second time, I wanted to be paid on the books and I had to pass on a lot of families because they wanted to pay off the books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the nannies understand economics or data. The general rise in wages for individuals moving from illegal to legal status is driven by their ability to apply for different types of jobs.

There will be a greater supply of nannies eligible to apply for jobs requiring a legal nanny. The rates for jobs that want or must pay above the table will go down. There may be a smaller supply go illegal nannies who have no other work options, this supply may go down so the jobs that offer really crazy below minimum wage rates would go up.

There would be a negative impact on the higher paying jobs and a positive impact on the bottom paying jobs. This is better on average for nannies and employers as employers paying legally would have more affordable childcare options and more nannies would be able to apply for legal jobs.

I am a nanny and posted a few pages back about supply and demand. It's uninformed to assume none of us have a grasp on macroeconomics.

[nannydebsays]

No, no one knows anything more than an estimate of how few parents pay "nanny taxes". But I would bet an anonymous survey would reveal that less than 30% of parents do pay legally.

And just to be clear, it's not all employers fault - nannies out there who avoid taxes are a huge issue as well.

Anecdotally, in a recent local survey, 50% of respondents said they were paid off the books, most because the parents chose that option, some because the nannies themselves made that choice.

Also anecdotally, last time I job searched, more than 80% of the parents I contacted either had no idea why I would want to be paid on the books, or downright refused to do so.

[Anonymous]

nannydebsays wrote:No, no one knows anything more than an estimate of how few parents pay "nanny taxes". But I would bet an anonymous survey would reveal that less than 30% of parents do pay legally.

And just to be clear, it's not all employers fault - nannies out there who avoid taxes are a huge issue as well.

Anecdotally, in a recent local survey, 50% of respondents said they were paid off the books, most because the parents chose that option, some because the nannies themselves made that choice.

Also anecdotally, last time I job searched, more than 80% of the parents I contacted either had no idea why I would want to be paid on the books, or downright refused to do so.

You're forgetting that's assumed that the employer, not the employee, who has the higher hand, when it comes to paying taxes.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I live in California, I insist on paying nanny taxes, it is the nannies that I want to hire that do not want me to pay those taxes -- so I do not hire them. I think these legal nannies perhaps want to collect some current gov't benefits without realizing that they need to pay into the system in order to collect social security benefits.

Incidentally, this will be a HUGE issue in immigration reform when those newly-legal citizens want to collect social security. In many cases they will have paid no taxes on their income (even people here illegally can have employment taxes paid on them), because either their employer did not do so, or they themselves did not want the employer to do so.

In either case, I think that the Government will have no choice but to concede the issue (because it will be very difficult for these new citizens to document a lifetime of earnings and employment taxes on those earnings), and grant our new citizens social security benefits at some default rate.

In that case will expect to collect a similar rate of social security benefits for all my years spent working as a SAHM.

[nannydebsays]

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:No, no one knows anything more than an estimate of how few parents pay "nanny taxes". But I would bet an anonymous survey would reveal that less than 30% of parents do pay legally.

And just to be clear, it's not all employers fault - nannies out there who avoid taxes are a huge issue as well.

Anecdotally, in a recent local survey, 50% of respondents said they were paid off the books, most because the parents chose that option, some because the nannies themselves made that choice.

Also anecdotally, last time I job searched, more than 80% of the parents I contacted either had no idea why I would want to be paid on the books, or downright refused to do so.

You're forgetting that's assumed that the employer, not the employee, who has the higher hand, when it comes to paying taxes.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your point. Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Every time we hear of a tax issue, it's employer of the domestic employee, who gets fined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incidentally, this will be a HUGE issue in immigration reform when those newly-legal citizens want to collect social security. In many cases they will have paid no taxes on their income (even people here illegally can have employment taxes paid on them), because either their employer did not do so, or they themselves did not want the employer to do so.

I might be mistaken as I haven't payed close attention to the immigration reform issues, but I was under the impression that if put through, it will not make them citizens at all, just give them temporary legal status. They will still have to continue to file to try and keep that status, and then many years later, could possibly become citizens. The nannies (or anyone else) that are not legal now and currently agree to be paid above board with a taxpayer id number, could possibly have an easier chance at getting legal status as they will have shown that they were willing to pay taxes, even with not being able to get anything back by doing so regarding benefits like Social Security etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time we hear of a tax issue, it's employer of the domestic employee, who gets fined.

Does anyone know about what 3:41 is asking?

[Anonymous]

To the dcurbanmom.com owner, Your posts are always well-received by the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do nannies and/or families who hire them feel about the immigration reform act. We have always hired a legal nanny, and suddenly the nanny market will have many more legal nannies permitted to work in the country. Nannies, do you worry about increased competition? Families who currently pay under the table to illegal nannies, how would you feel if your longtime nanny is here legally?

Lol

Immigrants helped so many families everywhere.
Thanks to them their kids are happy, thriving at school.

These immigrants helps the economy and the community!