nanny wages cash in hand

[janett]

why oh why do some employers feel the need to offer x amount pay and then when it comes to signing contracts they want to pay at least a 1/3 cash in hand? dont they realise nannys might one day want a mortgage ect..

And on the planet I occupy NannyL "people with top jobs with very high incomes" - in banking, insurance, law - are more likely to have no income at all through losing their job rather than worrying about £100 here or there. My dh is in the City and people are losing their job all over the place so the question of increasing the nanny's wages will be academic - there will be no nanny! The NHS will not be reducing the pay of their consultants but said consultants will have a smaller pot of money left over for the nanny after they have paid their increased mortgage, school fees, petrol costs, supermarket shopping etc.

Dr bosses will NOt be getting rid of their nannies

there arnt (m)any other forms of child care avaliable to them.... when they are on call / have to work over time... cause they cant leave an operation going wrong mid theatre

My boss is adament that a Nanny is her only child care option (if you can call it an option?)

her collegues all agree hence they all have nannies.

If they gave up their nannies they couldnt work..... cause they know we can stay over time at no notice, and you cant do that at a nursary, and its not exactly easy or acceptable to do that to a childminder

NannyL, you are arguing my point: nannies are the only acceptable childcare and not a luxury.

I agree, I just don't understand why the gov. wont allow childcare to be tax deductable.
Approved only of course.

Would serve double wammy of allowing more '?middle income' people to return to work and increasing tax revenue (think of all the tax you would get from all these highly paid nannies)
I agree with annh and justaphase amongst other things here in my part of SW LOndon I see lots of nannies looking for jobs for weeks at a time and several have told me they are sitting on the fence about going home (obv. may be other reasons they are net teling me)

whilst not condoning it the bottom line is that many people with 2 pre-school children face the following financial decision:

1. stay at home and earn nothing
2. return to work,pay 2 lots of nursery or childminder fees and earn nothing
3. return to work pay a nanny and earn nothing or even lose money
4. return to work pay a nanny cash in hand and actually have some of your earnings left

I'm not sure what income level you face these choices (when I faced them 5 years ago it was about £30k). I went for option 3 and I am bloody lucky that I was able to because I have a dh who earns a reasonable whack. I know a lot of people think it is purely selfishness/greediness that make people pursue the cash-in-hand option but I would speculate that very often it is the reality that going back to work would simply not be an option unless they did.

Here endeth the case for better tax breaks on childcare.

agree wiht hatwoman too
come to think of it some nannies have been looking for months I 'think' pickings are quite lean round here now.

this is why I am still at home
to pay a nanny £400 net pw, £28K gross I would need to earn £45K just to break even
pay for a travelcard and there is about £450 quid left which I am sure would be swallowed up with payroll/insurance costs

£400pw? You mean gross live-out, right?

net live out

Now is that net or cih?

I'm confused

I want to know whether or not to add taxes to it. If net, there are taxes to add. If cih (cash inhand) then I just add 3k for when NannyL turns you in.

ah okay
I reckon if you pay a ft live out nanny £400 pw net = £28K gross
in order to pay all relevant taxes, NI etc costs the employer £31K

If you earn £45K gross = approx £32.5K net leaving you with 1.5K after you have paid for the nanny

Pay for your travelcard to get to work and the payroll/insurance for the nanny and you have nothing left

lol AN

Could be cheaper to pay cih and lie about start dates, then gamble on the fine.

See, you could always claim you paid your nanny less cih than you actually did.

Did you know nannies need to insure themselves against killing your children or getting them off their faces on too much calpol?

What?!?!

If my nanny kills one of my children she won't need insure because she too will turn up dead.

You know, come to think of it, the 3k is way cheaper than the taxes. What sort of deterrant is that?

Athene ponders her own stupidity finances.

I think the idea is that you get some money to compensate, the insurance company pays out and she, er, has paid £60 a year for the privilege.

See here.

But the whole reason I had kids was so I could get rid of all my money.

lol

i think you have to pay tax owed plus £3k
ignoring comment about when I personally turn you in

I'd never work for anyone who paid cash in hand.... because i NEED my payslips for my MORTGAGE!

not sure i would say that a nanny is a luxury - more of an essential neccesity!!

no childcare, then no job for mb

and yes athene - unfort you would have to pay back tax and £3000 fine

Yes comes back to thread to add it's back tax/NI plus 3k fine.
Does anyone know do you get a criminal record too?

assume you would get a record

ponders

obviously nannies have a crb to prove to parents that they are safe to leave their children with but - wonder how many parents if they had to have one, to prove to nanny that they are sane/safe to work for - what would show up on theirs?

but how many people get caught?