Why in 2016 are parents still wanting to pay nannies in cash

[Yerazig]

I've been job hunting for the past few months and it's becoming a worrying occurance how many families think it's ok to offer a full salary in cash. I don't understand surerly you must think highly enough of the person looking after your child, that you wouldn't be doing something so illegal like that. I don't understand how so many families it doesn't even register in their mind not to pay us in cash.

Why do you think that the situation not like a company employee out of interest?

The employing family have to provide payroll, holiday pay, SSP, Mat leave, comply with most workplace legislation, observe standard industry disciplinary processes etc etc. Your employer has to insure you and their home appropriately etc etc
As a nanny you will usually be an employee of 1 but to all intents and purposes you are an employee like any other?

We also found the opposite - one nanny wanted me to put 24 hours a week at Nmw through payroll and the rest in cash so she could claim tax credits and housing benefit!

Why do you think that the situation not like a company employee out of interest?

I'm just responding to this comment made by a PP

No-one else pays their employee out of taxed income - tax is calculated after you pay your employees for any company

A nanny is a private arrangement, not a company employee in the usual sense. I agree a nanny is an employee with all the extras that an employer has to provide. But as long as childcare is not tax-deductable, it's really as different situation. It's more comparable with, say, employing a full time housekeeper or gardener. Should that also be paid out of non-taxed income?

Should that also be paid out of non-taxed income?

That would be nice [yearns for housekeeper and gardener]

As a parent [obv] I would view a cleaner/housekeeper/gardener etc as more of a lifestyle choice.

Certainly one could take the view that having children is also a choice, but it is one that the government encourage and support [ish] needing a supply of young people to enter the workplace, pay taxes and thus our pensions/care costs in our old age. There is also a stated strategy to ensure that both parents enter the workplace as soon as possible and tax policies which do not support a SAHP situation. So I would argue that our successive governments view children as a necessary evil rather than a lifestyle choice.

How many people have paid for nursery care out of their non-taxed income? Workplace nurseries were an idea some years back but they did not happen in a big way. Maybe whatever limits there were on it were too restrictive. Childcare vouchers is what has remained from those days, as it is more practical but even that will be phased out soon. The new system may or may not be better.

With nannies, isn't it more about employer responsibilities? Parents may not want to be the employer, they would rather use a service... yet don't want to use a childminder or nursery.

Nannies are predominately women, often quite young, so measures in place are designed to protect them, provide them with employment rights, now encourage them to save for a pension. Shouldn't we be encouraging women's rights? Does a nanny not have as much right to have the same benefits as other workers? Or are nannies still seen as servants?

cindy34 what about the right of families to work with reasonable cost childcare? The disconnect between wages and the cost of childcare is huge. Making it all tax deductible would make a huge difference. You could cap it at a number of children if necessary.

How is employing a nanny a "private arrangement"? And what does that mean?

Regarding Yarazig's comment "But like many hundreds of thousands of people you stay at home if you can't afford to pay out for childcare". Funny, I thought people went to work because they can't afford to stay home. Childcare is absolute requirement. Staying home is a luxury for those who can afford it. If staying home is the default position, then those going to work have to fund that choice. And they have to pay for childcare.

I absolutely agree with others on this thread that income used to pay for childcare should be paid out before tax is calculated. If I say made £2900 per month and paid a nanny/childminder/nursery/club £1800 per month, then I should be taxed as if I made £1100 per month. So I would be taxed on an annual income of £13, 200, the nanny would be taxed on an income of £21, 600. Under the current system, the government takes taxes from me on an income of £34, 800. And then takes them again from the nanny on £21, 800.

I have been arguing this point for many years. It is unlikely to happen.

How is employing a nanny a "private arrangement"? And what does that mean?

I simply mean that it's an arrangement between individuals/families rather than a company employee.

Funny, I thought people went to work because they can't afford to stay home. Childcare is absolute requirement. Staying home is a luxury for those who can afford it Not always the case. I gave up full time work for a number of years, because with three children, the childcare costs were greater than my take home wage. It wasn't financially viable to work away from home.