This topic is for discussing childcare options. If you want to advertise, please use your Local site.
Nanny Employers to contribute 3% towards nannies pension - from Oct 2012 / 2017(72 Posts)
I have just heard on MoneyBox that employers of nannies will not be excluded from the upcoming work pension scheme, so employer contribution will be 3%, employee contribution 4% and Government adds 1%.
Good that the BBC asked about nannies... it is something I tweeted to @R4Today when they discussed the work pension scheme, so looks like they took notice and asked the specific question.
It will apply if the employee is aged 22+ and earns £7475+ per year. It starts from Oct 2012, though will be phased in between then and 2017. (info from the link above)
What are your thoughts... will this make much of a difference to nannies salaries? Will it result in more employers of nannies not operating PAYE?
so does this mean the employer has to pay 3% extra and we lose 4% of our salary each month towards a pension?
i already have a private pension that i contribute to
sorry if blonde, had a late night
The employee can choose to opt out.
But the employer must provide, unless that opt-out is definitely exercised.
Yes, I think so.
Not sure what will happen if we already have a private pension, as that won't have employer contribution. Maybe there will be some opt-out, which enables the private pension to be continued and the employer contribute towards it.
As ever, details are abit patchy at present.
NEST website has been established but not a lot of info on it yet.
This is on top of the gross salary, correct?
I would wonder if it will be a deduction, like employee tax/NI.
I do wonder how it will be done... will the employer have to send a separate payment to NEST, or will it all be done via payments to HMRC.
As far as I know, the specifics of how the scheme will work have not been released. Does anyone know if that sort of level of detail is available somewhere?
Well if it isn't on top of the gross salary all I can see is it being yet one more reason to negotiate a gross salary!
I'm watching this with interest.
My early view is that employers will still have their budget for what they can afford to pay a nanny, and any pension paid will simply have to come out of that budget. More money will only be forthcoming from familes who can afford to pay more money, therefore families who can't afford more will have to stop employing nannies or nannies who work for those families will lose some take-home. It's hard to say how it will go yet.
I think the biggest issue I can see right now is that it makes conversations about nanny salaries even more complex, given how many nannies still operate in terms of net weekly wages.
Maybe it will be the final nail in the Net Wage coffin - resulting in all nanny agencies only telling parents and nannies to negotiate salary as Gross.
At around 4 minutes... Steve Webb (Minister of State for Pensions) says that small companies won't need to be in the scheme until towards the end of the phasing in period. So we are looking at 2016/2017 before nanny employers will have to provide the pension scheme.
At 4:58 - nannies are mentioned.
so nothing likely to happen for years
Disscussed briefly here six months ago. It looks like my guess that the new government would bin this and the associated NEST quango may have been a little premature, but there is some time to go yet...
If this happens, it will tip me over the edge and put one nanny out of work. I am having my third DC in mid ecember. Older two are in full time school. I am absolutely not paying for any pension contribution. So, if this happens (and I realise it is a long way off) I will get an au pair and a childminder and avoid the minimum salrary under which this has to be paid.
I think it will definitely result in more people paying cash in hand, or at least part cash-in-hand. People will put their nanny on the books for some £500 per month, call her an au pair and pay the rest in cash. Proper on-the-books Ofsted registered nannies will become a priviledge of the rich.
Treating parents like profitable business is outrageous. If anyone wants to start a protest I will gladly follow.
Ft article today says anyone who employs a nanny will need to go register for pension auto-enrolment and this applies 2015 onwards. Some more info here https://www.pensionplaypen.com/autoenrolment/home
So almost 3yrs on from when I last replied - but is this now happening
On a rough guide of a nanny earning £20k gross the employer will have to pay an extra £620ish a year into a pension - is that right?
It's definitely happening, and will coincide with the new tax free Childcare scheme being introduced in 2015....
Nanny payroll agencies are probably running their hands in glee.
I think this is going to be the end of nannies for anyone except the super rich
The Government didn't decide to keep it simple! I am no expert but it looks to me like the minimum contributions are 2% (1% from employer and 1% from nanny) to September 2017 when they increase to 3% nanny and 2% employer and then increase again in October 2018 to 5% nanny, 3% employer (nanny will get tax relief at 20% so this 5% becomes 4%).
At 3% the employer contribution is 3% or £600. But to maintain the net pay of the nanny after tax and deductions, the combined cost from October 2018 is effectively 7% or £1,400 on £20,000 gross earnings.
There are going to be some interesting negotiations!
As an employer, by law you have to enroll the nanny and give (her) the option to "opt out" without pressure. But since it involves "free" money probably most will take it, which is of course the intention of the Government.
Correction: Just read these minimum percentages apply only on what they earn over a minimum (currently £5,668 but will increase each year). For example, for a nanny who earns £20,000 a year, the minimum percentages apply to the difference between £20,000 and £5,668, which is £14,332. Thus the employer would pay £430 and the nanny £573, total £1,003.
Why would net pay of the nanny be maintained?
Yet another reason employers should agree gross pay.
Is it always going to be a percentage of salary or is there minimum amounts?
It is something else to build into the cost calculations. Wonder how it will affect other forms of childcare.
Is there a link to the rules for how it works and timescales?
I am not a pension expert, but the employer contribution will presumably be a direct additional cost to employers, even if they do agree gross pay? This is a percentage on top of gross pay. The employee contribution obviously comes off unless you have a net pay agreement (which naturally you shouldn't).
If you are hiring a new nanny, employers will obviously have to factor this in. Not sure what you can do with an existing nanny though? Employers could find quite a bump in their childcare costs - all I can think you could do if you and the nanny couldn't agree a reduction in gross salary is make the nanny redundant and re-advertise at the lower salary that you can afford (which would potentially be a fair dismissal if done correctly, though it could be a bit borderline).
I'm about to hire my second Nanny and am sailing close to the wind in meeting her salary requirements. So glad to read these posts as this is something I had not budgeted for.
So, Nanny has asked for £10 gross. How would I then factor these pension payments in? I cannot afford any more than £10 ph, specifically when Nanny has expressed an interest in beginning her own family which has meant me having to ensure I could afford accrued holiday pay if on maternity leave. Argh.
Has any nanny employer (paye scheme started before april 2012) found out the start date for pension scheme? Would be interesting to know when this really starts for very small employers.
I don't currently employ a nanny, but anyone who does should be able to work it out using this tool if that helps?
If someone is under age 22, do they have to opt-in to the scheme?
Might that mean that employers choose young staff, if they don't automatically have to provide a pension scheme to them?
NNick - It will always be a percentage. Even where there is a "free cash" element a surprising number of people refuse to opt into a company pension rather than pay in a percent or two. It's very common with people in their 20's.. Autoenrollment is designed to make it harder for them to do so, or at least by not enrolling they will have to be provided with a calculation of loss and future impact.
If they do opt out, then the employer doesn't have to contribute at all, is my understanding. Most large employers will provide a sliding scale - if you chose to contribute 2%, the employer will contribute 3, 3/5; 5/9% and so on. At a nanny level with a gross agreement in place, there will be a real impact on incomes on both sides. If a net agreement is in place, it will become punitive for the employer.
From the Nannytax website
Pensions - Anyone who employs one or two staff will be required by law to enrol staff into a pension scheme automatically, unless they specifically opt out, from May 2017. It is estimated that this will add around £750 a year to the cost of a full-time nanny.
What happens if I already have a pension?
Had one since I was 18 - daddy blondes is a bank manager so told me to start young
Can the employer add to that?
If they refuse/don't want to is there anything that us nannies can do about it?
I wondered that as well Blondes. I suspect that as the personal pension scheme is personal rather than provided by the employer, it can't be topped up by the employer. Thus those of us with a personal pension will have multiple pension schemes. I already have two (I don't understand why) though only contribute into one.
Well, 3 years on and I have long since joined the au pair / childminder world. Will definitely not be supplying anyone with a pension. I now very much enjoy NOT paying tax.
Pension? Surely you jest?
Employer contribution is additional. So unless nanny opts out, £10 per hr becomes 10.30?
This site is quite useful http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/employers/exceptions.aspx#modif and deals with the small employer question.
As I set up my payroll for the first time this year, it says that my 'staging date' (i.e. the date I have to operate auto enrolment) is 2017.
What is the earliest date someone has found they have... any earlier than Jan 2015?
Not sure it's as simple as 3% increase on gross salary, there is something about the first x amount not counting isn't there? However it will be an increase in cost to employers which is probably more than pay rises they may have given their nanny in the past few years.
Nanny tax say the earliest is 2015 and that only applies if you were employing a nanny before 2012, so I'm fairly happy to take their word for it. However there may be exceptions if you put nanny through company payroll, in which case the rules for the size of your company apply to them, or you have other staff. The staging dates depend when you 'set up'.
It is going to increase costs and well worth bearing in mind for anyone looking to employ a nanny, or even planning to give nanny a payrise. Good payroll companies will be alerting you to this but as a rough and ready calculation 3% probably isn't a bad idea.
I think the new pension scheme is brilliant for us nannies! I know full well my employer has a pension herself so why shouldn't I? Why because we don't work for a big company shouldn't we be entitled to a government led pension?
Everyone's entitled to this new scheme not just nannies!
It's so hard to do a pension alone. I think the government have made a fantastic choice bringing in this new scheme.
Abby are you happy for your net pay to be reduced as a consequence?
I am happy to put some of my nanny's pay towards a pension instead of paying it to her. (not sure she will be so happy about that however). I wouldn't be happy if she expects pension contribution as well as her current pay. As others have said, if nannies expect this then the result will be fewer nannies employed.
It's different for businesses with employees - they can count these costs as expenses/outgoings, counted against revenues, so it reduces the amount on which they pay tax. Whereas individuals who are employers are paying salary and pension contributions out of their net wages on which they have already paid tax.
for those organised nannies who have pensions - as an employer I would be delighted if my nanny told me which pension to pay my percentage into!
I have money purchase schemes for my own pension and until I became self-employed my employer paid into these as part of my work pension. When you say you have "personal pensions" is that what you mean? Also known as a defined contributions pension.
Abby, no other business has to pay the employer's taxes out of already taxed income. That's the difference. I am a GP, so relatively well paid. I work 3 days a week and my 2 day a week nanny costs over half my take home income. If I didn't have family childcare for one day a week it would be 80%. So forgive me for not jumping for joy over this.
minipie the employee's contributions will come out of her pay but you will have to pay the employer's contributions on top. I very much doubt that a tribunal would look kindly on attempts to make a nanny redundant and employ another one to avoid the pension. So this will cost you more unless your nanny opts out
dietcoke I had planned to give my nanny a pay rise - this legislation probably means she will get pension contributions instead of a pay rise. I can't afford both.
Yes I am sure there will be a lot of pension instead of pay rise issues.
I can't see why people are getting upset about paying proper pension contributions for their employees.
it isn't part of their current pay, it is for later on in life. It is in addition to current pay, not instead of it. It is completely fair, in my book. If you employ someone, you pay them properly, including salary, sick pay, holiday pay, and pension.
Yes but most ppl who employ someone are bringing in money to the business then paying expenses and wages then are left with a profit . Employing a nanny isn't a business which generates it's own money it's the employers own personnel money that pays Nannie so not really the same as other employed positions
But the nanny is allowing the parent(s) to work, instead of having to stay at home, unpaid, to look after the children. She is, therefore, indirectly boosting the total income of the family, just as other employees add to the profits of their company. It is therefore fair that a nanny should receive all the benefits that other employees get, including a pension.
No, her pension contributions are not tax-allowable but that is because, at the moment childcare costs in general are not tax-deductible.
It doesn't't have to be an exact analogy with a business to be fair.
I don't object to paying my nannys salary out of my taxed income. I object to paying her income tax and NI out of taxed income, that is double taxation at its worst.
I know employees already in the scheme where at present employers have to pay 1% and employees in return lose 1% of their salary. The employer pays the 1% on top of the gross salary. The employee loses 1% of their salary (less tax relief) for their contribution. I think it's not until at least 2016/17 for those employing fewer than 30 staff.
The simple answer for employers is no pay rise until the extra 1% cost has been covered from what otherwise would have been the pay rise.
Nanny employers are taxed almost 3 times - first they pay tax/NI on their pay; then out of that net pay they then pay the nanny's tax and NI; finally they also pay employer NI and do not even get the new tax break from £2k a year NI which other small employers are getting.
People need to stop seeing nanny pay as net pay plus tax and NI. It's a gross wage. There's an argument for exempting them from employer NICs and possibly pension contributions but the nanny's contributions to the system need to be paid and come from the nanny's gross wage.
As an employer of a nanny I think this is a great idea. Nanny employment is ridiculously insecure and most contracts offer the bear minimum in sickness benefit etc because families can't risk big duplication of childcare costs.
I think it is only fair and right nannies are protected with a pension.
And didn't the government just say something about a tax cut for small employers? We're nanny employers included in that? If so we are still better off.
The whole tax, national insurance and pension situation can be avoided either by using a nursery (where the nursery pays these benefits on behalf of the staff) or a childminder who is self employed and not entitled to these benefits.
People employ nannies precisely because they want the employer-employee, which allows them maximum control over how their children are looked after - they, as employers, set the terms and the nanny is obliged to follow them. For the luxury of being in this position, parents must accept the responsibilities of being employers as well as the benefits - it is as simplest that.
Sorry, missed out "relationship", as in employer-employee relationship.
The employer contribution is surely on top of the gross wage, like the employers NI?
That's why it is being so slowly phased in amid employer grumbling.
I know my company will be moving to it as on top of salary as I was reviewing next year budgets and wage costs have increased.
Dietcokefan are you saying that a nanny earns only twenty percent less than yourself as a GP?
Allsfair >It is completely fair, in my book. If you employ someone, you pay them properly, including salary, sick pay, holiday pay, and pension.
Up until now, it is not something that small employers have paid. Small employers have not had pension schemes. So it is an extra cost to all small employers.
dietcokefan >I object to paying her income tax and NI out of taxed income, that is double taxation at its worst.
You should not be doing that anyway, that only happens in a Net pay agreement. If you agree a gross salary, then you DEDUCT income tax and NI from your nannies salary and pay it to HMRC on your nannies behalf. Your cost as employer is Gross Salary + Employers NI + expenses.
What I think you may mean is that you don't feel it is fair for childcare to be tax deductible... so coming off your gross salary, rather than coming off your net salary. Would that be right?
I feel that there should be choice about pensions. It is not clear at present, at least to me, what happens for those people who already have a pension they pay into. Do they stop paying that and start up a work pension? Can pension pots be merged, so that annual admin costs can be reduced? I already seem to have have two pensions, plus the state pension (if that still exists when I retire).
As far as "double taxation" goes, it is a common feature of everyone's general spending.
Every time you buy anything subject to VAT out of your taxed income (pretty well everything apart from food, children's clothes and books) you are paying tax twice. Likewise, Stamp Duty when you buy a house. Every time you buy petrol or alcohol, a large proportion of the price is duty to the government. "Double taxation" is a normal part if everyday life.
Dietcokefan are you saying that a nanny earns only twenty percent less than yourself as a GP?
yes, that is effectively what I am saying. When you factor in the nanny's income tax and NI, and the fact that I am paying her gross income out of my taxed income, if I employed her for the three days I work (and of course including my commuting time, so her day is about 90 minutes longer than mine), her wage and taxes plus mileage and expenses (expenses are fairly minimal here) would add up to 80% of my take home wage. I am lucky that my employer pays my litigation insurance, many don't and if I had to pay it myself and pay a nanny for 3 days I would probably be paying to work.
TBH I'd rather be at home with the kids, but if I stop work for 5 years it would be almost impossible to get back and it isn't worth giving up all that training. But it is a heavy price to pay. I have deliberately chosen a well qualified nanny, and to pay her above board in order to retain someone good, as my youngest is small and there isn't much that is more important than who looks after your children. But I have to say, if it wasn't for the continuity for the kids, I would employ two people for one day a week each and pay them cash (which would be legal). I'd save a fortune.
So not all nanny employers are fat cats out to exploit their serfs! Some of us are just doing our best.
what other employer, other than a household employer, pays their employee's taxes out of already taxed income? name one!
I also have a good professional job and when I had a nanny she earned only slightly less than I did, once her salary came off mine iyswim. We have switched to ap and won't go back.
If you pay for nursery or a childminder that comes out of net pay as well, so it's the same for all childcare isn't it?
That's not the point, dietcokefan!
Employers are responsible for paying the costs associated with having people work for them - it doesn't matter whether the employer is a "household" one or not. If you take the benefits of being an employer, you have to shoulder the responsibilities as well. It comes as package. If the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, there are other childcare options (nursery, childminder) available.
This thread is specifically about pensions. I do not see why employees who do such vitally important, and skilled work, for comparatively low pay should not be provided with financial security in old age, like all other employees.
And every other employer pays their employee's taxes off the income of the company before it is taxed . Only nanny employers don't. That is my point. I would have no objection to contributing to a pension if I wasn't being ripped off by HMRC for my decision to play by the rules.
But anyway. Lets amicably agree to disagree!
I absolutely agree nannies should get pensions btw - just saying we can't afford a nanny.
Oh, I am totally amicable about this! I have no personal stake in this at all - my views arise from a general commitment to social justice. My point is that all employers have unavoidable duties towards their employees - and some employers are not businesses but private individuals.
Yes, it's unfair it's not tax deductible. I don't need a nanny any more. Everyone I pay in my business that money comes off the turnover and I am taxed on what is left. Only with nannies is there no tax deductability which makes it very expensive for most people who employ nannies who are not rich parents (most of them).We had a year when like the GP above one of us worked for nothing ( we both earned the same that year). It paid off over time but it was certainly very hard and the admin is ridiculous. We should be allowed to pay the nanny gross and she then deals with the tax given this Government wants to ease the burdens on small employers.
nick, I see what you mean about cm and nurseries coming out in the same way, but the amounts paid for those are so much less. It was £48 a day for my local nursery whereas my nanny was £90 a day eg.
I went with nanny then later ap as I think excellent one to one care in the home is the ideal, so I know nannies can do an excellent job and deserve their wage.
At the moment, no form of childcare is tax-deductible (nurseries and childminders included). It may be that, in time, childcare will be made tax deductable but, until then, nannies should have the same employment rights as all other workers. The vast majority of parents employing nannies have pension rights themselves and (especially these days) consider that as a very important part of their employment package. I'm amazed that anyone would employ someone to do such a vital and personal service for their family and be happy to wash their hands of any responsibility for that person's wellbeing in later life. If someone doesn't slowly build up a pension throughout their working life, they can be left in real hardship in old age.
Jane - Of course parents will have less of their own income left if they have to pay for their nannies' pensions, but on some level, it still benefits them overall to employ a nanny or they wouldn't do it. Some parents don't work just for money, but because they don't want to stay at home looking after children 24/7 or because they want to use their professional skills. Many, as in your case, may not see much (or any) financial benefit at the time they employ a nanny but know it will pay off in the long term so overall, it makes good sense.
Madrigals - But that is because, with a nanny, you are getting a personal service instead of group care and you will always pay considerably more for that. A nanny works in your own home, looking after your children only, according to the standards you set. She will also look after your children when they are unwell, which childminders and nurseries won't do, thus removing a major headache for parents. A nanny is the nearest thing you will ever get to the parent's own care which is why you will always pay more.
Incidentally, the fact that a nanny provides this personal service for one family only is why they will almost always be classed as an employee and not self-employed.
I totally appreciate that, Better, and agree with all you say. Nannies deserve pensions and the best nannies provide absolutely premium care.
But, speaking personally, nannies were a real stretch for my budget and the Hmrc paperwork was a faff.
If you recruit very very carefully you can get an amazing ap now, due to the economic climate. Our current ap is a qualified teacher in an EU country, near-native speaker level fluent in English and is one of the most delightful and kind people I have ever met. She is amazing with DS. She provides nanny standard childcare and also does light housework, a little of our ironing and two babysits a month.
She tells me she is one of only two ap she knows locally who are happy with their host family, so hopefully how we treat her reflects properly how wonderful we think she is.
We are all planning to stay in touch after she goes and have told her she and her bf are welcome to stay with us any time when she has finished au pairing and to use us as a free holiday base. DS adores her and we are very happy.
We initially went for ap as we couldn't recruit a pt nanny when our previous nanny gave notice. I wouldn't switch back now, though.
Someone suggested nurseries but if you have 3 under 4 as we did at one point it is much more expensive to buy 3 London nursery places and then you don't have someone to take the oldest to a few mornings at a nursery school etc etc.
That is wonderful that you have found such an excellent solution, Madrigals, with all parties happy.
Au pairs are obviously in a very different position, being young and temporary helpers, who gain as much from the experience of being in another country as monetarily. My comments were aimed at career nannies who may spend a lifetime in the profession.
It's great that you have something that works so well for you and is also such a good opportunity for your au pair.
Join the discussion
Please login first.