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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.