[QUOTE=WishIHadACoolName]
Thanks for this. It really puts me at ease.
[/QUOTE]
You’re welcome. Glad I could allay any concerns that resulted from the out-of-line and incorrect accusation posted to you. Speaking of which. . .
[QUOTE=Mama Tiger]
Interesting to hear that there’s a teenage babysitter exemption to the in-home worker rules. I know that when I was paying a cleaning lady for coming in one day a week, under the rules then in existence her wages, small though they were, were well above the threshold to be paying Social Security taxes for her. You’d think that with all the Nannygates that have embarrassed politicians, it might be mentioned just once that those rules don’t apply to all in-home workers. Not having employed full-time teenagers, I never investigated whether they fell under a separate exemption.
Ignorance successfully fought.
[/QUOTE]
So you come about your “knowledge” of the tax code by hearing media reports about politicians’ adult nannies and your own personal experience with adult cleaning staff, and somehow think that gives you enough knowledge to accuse someone of illegal tax evasion?
You didn’t preface your post by acknowleding that you don’t know the first thing about tax laws. You didn’t suggest she look into whether or not she might have to withhold taxes (seeing as how you don’t know, yourself). You didn’t ask if she was aware of any obligations she might have with regard to withholding. No, you told her she “should. . . be paying Social Security on her wages.” You told her that “technically [it is] taxable income.” And in fact, neither one of those things is true. You basically flat out accused her of violating the law, not to criticize her of course, but to “caution” her not to talk about her illegal activities in public, lest the IRS get wind of it somehow, seeing as how they “might take a very different view indeed.”
What an obnoxious thing to do. I hope that your ignorance is fought enough that next time you’re tempted to make such an ugly accusation without a shred of actual knowledge about the subject matter, you’ll do everyone a favor and at least have the decency to look it up to find out if you’re even remotely right.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I just had a similar conversation with a friend whose daughter went out of state with the woman and her baby (under 3). She watched the child alone for 20 hours of this weekend trip. The daughter is 19. She was paid $120 for the whole weekend. I thought that was pretty chintzy, but on the other hand, she should have negotiated the price before she agreed to do it.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds to me more like she got $120 cash; paid travel expenses, including food and lodging; and better than 50% of her time spent as vacation (seeing as how she only “worked” 20 out of approximately 48 hours).
When I was in college (admittedly back in the bronze age), I got paid $25/day for staying with kids when their parents went away for the weekend. In today’s market, my boss pays his son’s nanny $100/day if she has to stay at the house when my boss travels. Sounds like your friend’s daughter got a pretty nice deal at $60 a day plus meals, expenses and vacation time.