11:51, I ask only one thing. If you aren't going to pay the high tax rates that the modern welfare state demands, then have the decency to vote against the welfare state itself. Don't be one of the many DC-area hypocrites who vote for big government and then cheat on their taxes. Because that is what you are doing -- you are letting me pay more so that you can pay less. It's a win for you but it's a loss for the rest of us.

By the way, it's a long term loss for your nanny, too, since her Social Security benefits will be tied to her lifetime earnings, which you are under-reporting.

And don't give me that "everybody does it" BS. I don't cheat and none of my friends does either. Our nannies are legal and we pay all taxes and benefits required by law. Despite the fact that I think the current level of government spending is insane.

I disagree with PP. Paying health benefits is "pay" the same as cash is. Cash isn't more moral than health benefits. In fact, "paying" via health benefits is better for both of you because it's deductible on your taxes, meaning that you will have more money to spend on her health benefits than you will on her cash salary.

But if she doesn't want the health benefits, that's another matter.

thanks. To be honest, I was completely above the board in a share situation last time and it bit me in the backside. The other family paid min wage on the books and cash otherwise so my family was paying more than the other family but the nanny was getting less from us so she treated us not so well. I'm still pissed about it.

This time, I'm more of a realist. Her salary is paid by a service. for occasional extra hours, she wants cash. Will we "get caught" for under-payroll 300/mo. I doubt it. How do I feel about it? It costs me less that way, nanny gets more, everybody happier. we all win.

MB here.

Just pay her (legally if you're paying her legally for her time now) for the hours. It's the cleanest, best solution.

Offering some level of payment of health insurance costs is a benefit, not payment for work. So if you are otherwise paying her legally I wouldn't do something that isn't in line with your current arrangement.

Reimbursing for health care premiums is not a taxable benefit (or expense) so it can be a great way to offer an additional benefit, or increase in value for the position, without incurring additional costs, but it isn't the same as salary for time worked.

I think the biggest question is where you stand on the legal/ethical issues of compensation. If you're comfortable skirting the rules a bit then you can consider cash or something. If you think it's important to be totally aboveboard then pay her for the time, in line with your existing contract, and document the change to the arrangement accordingly.

I hired a nanny in January and need to ask her to increase her hours by a little (about 4 hours a week).

I was just on the ACA Exchange and found out that we could buy her a gold health insurance plan for about the same amount as we would be paying her for the extra hours.

Could we/should we offer this to her where we pay the premium?
Should we offer this to her as we will pay you cash towards health insurance for 4 more hours per week?
Or should we offer her to increase the payroll?
Or should I just offer her cash?

I"m positive she'd prefer cash rather than add this to her payroll and although i know she is uninsured, I am not sure if she wants health insurance.

Thoughts?