New York City - Nanny taxes standards?

We've been interviewing some nannies and it seems like the presumption is that we, the employer, will pay all of the taxes (i.e. social security, medicare, fed income, and state). I'm just wondering if this is "standard" in NYC or if we've come across rather demanding candidates. Basically the presumption is that if we want to do this above board (which we certainly do) we need to make the take-home pay congruent with what they would get below board (i.e. we "gross up" to include the taxes).

Are we being taken for a ride or is this basically how it works? Thanks!

I think it's pretty standard to have at least a partial gross-up if you're paying on the books. Think of it like sales tax when shopping online. Do you buy that new computer from Amazon who add on NY sales tax or Newegg who charge the same price but don't collect the tax? For a nanny, it's tough to justify taking an on-the-books job with lower take home pay.

You can argue that a full gross-up isn't necessary since there are ancillary benefits to being on-the-books (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, etc.). But there are also some hidden pitfalls. I heard about a family recently who wanted to move their nanny on the books and were willing to gross-up to accomplish it, but the nanny would have lost her low-cost health insurance (not sure if it was Medicaid or what) because she would be making too much money to qualify, and they couldn't afford to pay for private health insurance. So off-the-books they remained.

We've been interviewing some nannies and it seems like the presumption is that we, the employer, will pay all of the taxes (i.e. social security, medicare, fed income, and state). I'm just wondering if this is "standard" in NYC or if we've come across rather demanding candidates. Basically the presumption is that if we want to do this above board (which we certainly do) we need to make the take-home pay congruent with what they would get below board (i.e. we "gross up" to include the taxes).



One question...

Are you running for office? If so, go legit. Otherwise, tell your Nanny that she just became an independent contractor.

dh

Frankly, I am stunned that an attorney would even hint that you should pay an employee off the books. :mad:

Also, how in the world could anyone think for a moment to even suggest aiding in the commission of fraud on an insurance or "entitlement" program is somehow okay? :td:

OP, what do you think will happen if your nanny is injured on the job and it is discovered that you have no Workers Comp. insurance? Anyone here know what the minimum penalty demanded last year by the State of New York was for failure to carry Workers Compensation insurance? It was more than $50,000 even for one employee! (I'm not saying they collected it in every case, but they did demand it.)

Then there's state-mandated disability insurance. Think you can go without that as well?

Think off the books nannies don't get injured and then threaten to blow the whistle on the families who hire them? Think again! Do you want to take this risk?

Let's start with you reading this publication: Paying Social Security tax on a household employee (http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1528) which is really basic.

Then, consider that you need to obtain an I-9 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=31b3ab0a43b5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD) and if the candidate is eligible to work and assuming you conducted a background check, you'll then need a W4 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf).

Of course, at this point you haven't even made out a single payroll check. While there are people who say they can do all this themselves, I recommend a payroll service like Paychex who will calculate all the deductions properly, pay all of them, and most importantly, file every form that needs to be filed, e.g. the NYS-45 (http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/current_forms/wt/nys45_fill_in.pdf).

Personally, I would not take the risks in hiring off the books household help. Apart from it being unquestionably illegal, I think doing so is one of the dumbest ideas around. If you have any doubts about this, please consult an attorney.

Otherwise, tell your Nanny that she just became an independent contractor.Isn't this "legit"? ;)

Frankly, I am stunned that an attorney would even hint that you should pay an employee off the books. :mad:

Also, how in the world could anyone think for a moment to even suggest aiding in the commission of fraud on an insurance or "entitlement" program is somehow okay? :td:

OP, what do you think will happen if your nanny is injured on the job and it is discovered that you have no Workers Comp. insurance? Anyone here know what the minimum penalty demanded last year by the State of New York was for failure to carry Workers Compensation insurance? It was more than $50,000 even for one employee! (I'm not saying they collected it in every case, but they did demand it.)

Then there's state-mandated disability insurance. Think you can go without that as well?

Think off the books nannies don't get injured and then threaten to blow the whistle on the families who hire them? Think again! Do you want to take this risk?

Let's start with you reading this publication: Paying Social Security tax on a household employee (http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1528) which is really basic.

Then, consider that you need to obtain an I-9 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=31b3ab0a43b5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD) and if the candidate is eligible to work and assuming you conducted a background check, you'll then need a W4 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf).

Of course, at this point you haven't even made out a single payroll check. While there are people who say they can do all this themselves, I recommend a payroll service like Paychex who will calculate all the deductions properly, pay all of them, and most importantly, file every form that needs to be filed, e.g. the NYS-45 (http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/current_forms/wt/nys45_fill_in.pdf).

Personally, I would not take the risks in hiring off the books household help. Apart from it being unquestionably illegal, I think doing so is one of the dumbest ideas around. If you have any doubts about this, please consult an attorney.

Um, I'll well aware of the law. Please read my OP. We will be doing this above board. The question relates to whether it is standard to gross up in order to pay all taxes for the employee, not whether it is advisable to not report the nanny and her income.

Isn't this "legit"? ;)

By your wink I assume you're kidding, but just in case... no, it's not. Employers of household employees like nannies are subject to special tax and insurance rules and regulations that you can't skirt by just calling them an independent contractor.

And Landing Gear, I'm not saying (or hinting) that it's okay to skirt the legal requirements. I'm saying that for many families and nannies, the reality is that compliance would make it extremely difficult for the families to pay a wage that was acceptable to the workers. In some of those cases, both parties decide they'd rather assume the legal and financial risks of noncompliance.

The fact that so many people pay their domestic help off the books (and the numbers I've seen are quite staggering) suggests to me that there is a fundamental problem with how some of these rules are set up. It needs to be easier to comply in the first place and easier to get into compliance for those who didn't start out that way.

By your wink I assume you're kidding, but just in case... no, it's not. Employers of household employees like nannies are subject to special tax and insurance rules and regulations that you can't skirt by just calling them an independent contractor.I was kidding. Nannies get so exploited especially here in NYC by wealthy parents who would just as soon NOT spend time raising their kids while having the nannies act as their personal maids too.

Nannies get so exploited especially here in NYC by wealthy parents who would just as soon NOT spend time raising their kids while having the nannies act as their personal maids too.

Certainly a topic for Omni. :rolleyes:

How can you say something that awful? Your statement is a broad generalization.

Isn't this "legit"? ;)

There can be severe penalties for wrongly classifying someone as an independent contractor when the government believes he or she is an employee.

Um, I'll well aware of the law. Please read my OP. We will be doing this above board. The question relates to whether it is standard to gross up in order to pay all taxes for the employee, not whether it is advisable to not report the nanny and her income.

Uh, you're welcome. But since you know the law, here's a question for you. Prospective nanny says to you, e.g., I want $400 a week. You say you're willing to pay $400 a week but the nanny then specifies, "I want it in cash." You then suggest you will, as you put it, "gross up" her wages so that after taxes it comes to $400 a week. Question: Are you, in reality, paying her taxes? If so, is the money you are paying above the original $400 taxable income to her?




By your wink I assume you're kidding, but just in case... no, it's not. Employers of household employees like nannies are subject to special tax and insurance rules and regulations that you can't skirt by just calling them an independent contractor.

Absolutely correct!

And Landing Gear, I'm not saying (or hinting) that it's okay to skirt the legal requirements. I'm saying that for many families and nannies, the reality is that compliance would make it extremely difficult for the families to pay a wage that was acceptable to the workers. In some of those cases, both parties decide they'd rather assume the legal and financial risks of noncompliance.

Boo hoo! Charge all of them and throw in an extra one for Conspiracy.

The fact that so many people pay their domestic help off the books (and the numbers I've seen are quite staggering) suggests to me that there is a fundamental problem with how some of these rules are set up. It needs to be easier to comply in the first place and easier to get into compliance for those who didn't start out that way.

Law school is over, amigo. You are arguing "policy" which will get you nowhere and these people, hopefully in jail. The same bogus "arguments" are made to justify noncompliance with immigration laws.



I was kidding. Nannies get so exploited especially here in NYC by wealthy parents who would just as soon NOT spend time raising their kids while having the nannies act as their personal maids too.

That's true in many cases, I am sure. But what can be done? I do know that the federal government did tighten a lot of the requirements for au pairs who really were getting exploited.

How can you say something that awful? Your statement is a broad generalization.Are you kidding?

http://nymag.com/news/features/66471/

That's true in many cases, I am sure. But what can be done? I do know that the federal government did tighten a lot of the requirements for au pairs who really were getting exploited.At least there is this: http://www.labor.ny.gov/legal/domestic-workers-bill-of-rights.shtm

Uh, you're welcome. But since you know the law, here's a question for you. Prospective nanny says to you, e.g., I want $400 a week. You say you're willing to pay $400 a week but the nanny then specifies, "I want it in cash." You then suggest you will, as you put it, "gross up" her wages so that after taxes it comes to $400 a week. Question: Are you, in reality, paying her taxes? If so, is the money you are paying above the original $400 taxable income to her?


What is this a test? :rolleyes: This is why we hire a CPA. My question relates only to norms. If you are unwilling or unable to answer that question, then just say so.

Question: Are you, in reality, paying her taxes? If so, is the money you are paying above the original $400 taxable income to her?Yes, you are, and tax return forms will ask you this, though it's impossible to verify if you're paying in cash.

What is this a test? :rolleyes: This is why we hire a CPA. My question relates only to norms. If you are unwilling or unable to answer that question, then just say so.

I'm pointing out that you need an opinion letter and you would do well to hire a licensed professional to give you one.

It seems to me there's close to zero enforcement of nanny laws in NYC (perhaps because there are benefits to the overall economy of the city). Exception being clear cases of abuse.

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

It seems to me there's close to zero enforcement of nanny laws in NYC (perhaps because there are benefits to the overall economy of the city). Exception being clear cases of abuse.

I think that's true everywhere, no? I read up to 90 percent of families do it below board.

We've been interviewing some nannies and it seems like the presumption is that we, the employer, will pay all of the taxes (i.e. social security, medicare, fed income, and state). I'm just wondering if this is "standard" in NYC or if we've come across rather demanding candidates. Basically the presumption is that if we want to do this above board (which we certainly do) we need to make the take-home pay congruent with what they would get below board (i.e. we "gross up" to include the taxes).

Are we being taken for a ride or is this basically how it works? Thanks!
This has been standard in NY (and DC) for over 25 years. You "gross" up her wages to cover Federal, state & city + both employee and, of course, your share of Social Security and the entirety of Federal & state unemployment. As a rule of thumb, it's about 30% over her wages.

This has been standard in NY (and DC) for over 25 years. You "gross" up her wages to cover Federal, state & city + both employee and, of course, your share of Social Security and the entirety of Federal & state unemployment. As a rule of thumb, it's about 30% over her wages.

^ Thanks for an actual answer.

It seems to me there's close to zero enforcement of nanny laws in NYC (perhaps because there are benefits to the overall economy of the city). Exception being clear cases of abuse.

I don't know what you mean by "nanny laws" but I can assure you from personal knowledge that there is very serious enforcement of workers comp laws even if there is only one employee.

Are we being taken for a ride or is this basically how it works? Thanks!

Check out the Park Slope nanny survey, which is very helpful for this. Even if you don't live in Park Slope, it'll give a sense of what "normal" is.
On slide 50, you'll see that 36 percent of parents surveyed do NOT gross up, 33 percent do gross up fully and 14 percent pay some of the taxes. I have no idea what "other" means in this context, though.

http://www.parkslopeparents.com/docs/NannySurvey2011.FINAL.pdf

As an FYI, the majority of families (63 percent) pay completely off the books.

Check out the Park Slope nanny survey, which is very helpful for this. Even if you don't live in Park Slope, it'll give a sense of what "normal" is.

This is fascinating.

On slide 50, you'll see that 36 percent of parents surveyed do NOT gross up, 33 percent do gross up fully and 14 percent pay some of the taxes. I have no idea what "other" means in this context, though.

My guess is that a lot of the respondents didn't understand the technicalities of the question.

Note also that the 50th percentile hourly wage for a nanny on the books is a dollar higher than for one off the books, so in theory there's some gross-up built in there, too (although it's not a big enough spread to be a full gross up, my guess is that many on-the-books respondents are reporting take-home pay and not gross pay before taxes when it comes to hourly pay).

As an FYI, the majority of families (63 percent) pay completely off the books.

I think the more revealing number is that only 15% say they pay completely on the books.

Also note that more than half of those who reported paying part-on/part-off say they do so to keep their nanny eligible for social services like medicaid (the most common reason).

In other words, Landing Gear would be sending a heck of a lot of Park Slope parents to prison if given the chance. :)

In other words, Landing Gear would be sending a heck of a lot of Park Slope parents to prison if given the chance. :)

He better get busy! :)

Seriously, this is fascinating data. Wow. Very helpful. ^

As an FYI, the majority of families (63 percent) pay completely off the books.

And 13% "Prefer Not to Answer", so I would assume the true number is closer to 76%.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thread is obviously far afield from anything travel or tourism related. However, a number of other threads in the forum are also focused on assisting local members with various issues that are fairly specific to living in NYC. Accordingly, this thread will be allowed to remain here in the NYC Forum, provided that all members keep the discussion civil and free of personal exchanges.

The thread is yours to use or lose. @:-)

/Moderator

Check out the Park Slope nanny survey, which is very helpful for this. . .


As an FYI, the majority of families (63 percent) pay completely off the books.

But I am sure they are all drinking "fair trade," "shade grown," "organic" coffee, not taking their vegetables in plastic bags (even though that means they need to buy them for "poop scooping,") and encouraging the Food Co-op to boycott Israel.

In other words, typical Park Slope BS. :D






In other words, Landing Gear would be sending a heck of a lot of Park Slope parents to prison if given the chance. :)

He better get busy! :)



No, first, I want to get the perv or pervs who are molesting women in PS and send him or them to jail for a long term. Then, we can start with those who hire and exploit illegal aliens and fail to pay withholding taxes. After that, we'll just start with the civil penaties for failure to maintain workers comp. insurance.

No, first, I want to get the perv or pervs who are molesting women in PS and send him or them to jail for a long term. Then, we can start with those who hire and exploit illegal aliens and fail to pay withholding taxes. After that, we'll just start with the civil penaties for failure to maintain workers comp. insurance.Excellent set of priorities. ^

Lombardo, thanks very much for this survey. Extremely helpful data.

Landing Gear is certainly right that there is very serious enforcement of workers comp laws - for the 15-37% of schmucks who may be at least partially in compliance. After we hired our nanny and put her "on the books", we didn't have workers comp set up for a bit less than a month. We got a nice letter from the NY State Workers Comp Board telling us that we owe a "civil fine" of $4000 for not having the workers comp policy in place for a few weeks ($2k for every 10 days).

After I tell this story to my friends who are not in compliance, they feel that much more justified in not complying. NY might do a bit better than 15% full compliance if they didn't assume that working mothers have an HR department and "licensed professional" labor and tax counsel on speed dial.

Perhaps Landing Gear and Analise should run for AG and see how long they stay in office after they try to throw 63-85% of Park Slope (for starters) nanny employers in prison.

Lombardo, thanks very much for this survey. Extremely helpful data.

Landing Gear is certainly right that there is very serious enforcement of workers comp laws - for the 15-37% of schmucks who may be at least partially in compliance. After we hired our nanny and put her "on the books", we didn't have workers comp set up for a bit less than a month. We got a nice letter from the NY State Workers Comp Board telling us that we owe a "civil fine" of $4000 for not having the workers comp policy in place for a few weeks ($2k for every 10 days).

After I tell this story to my friends who are not in compliance, they feel that much more justified in not complying. NY might do a bit better than 15% full compliance if they didn't assume that working mothers have an HR department and "licensed professional" labor and tax counsel on speed dial.

Perhaps Landing Gear and Analise should run for AG and see how long they stay in office after they try to throw 63-85% of Park Slope (for starters) nanny employers in prison.

Yeah it is fairly confusing. We ended up hiring someone to take care of the paperwork partially out of fear of what you experienced!

Did you end up having to pay the $4k or were you able to get out of it?

Yeah it is fairly confusing. We ended up hiring someone to take care of the paperwork partially out of fear of what you experienced!

Did you end up having to pay the $4k or were you able to get out of it?

Good question. Trying to; haven't paid it yet. Funny thing is we hired a service to "take care of" the paperwork too!

Good question. Trying to; haven't paid it yet. Funny thing is we hired a service to "take care of" the paperwork too!

Lovely.

Lombardo, thanks very much for this survey. Extremely helpful data.

Landing Gear is certainly right that there is very serious enforcement of workers comp laws - for the 15-37% of schmucks who may be at least partially in compliance. After we hired our nanny and put her "on the books", we didn't have workers comp set up for a bit less than a month. We got a nice letter from the NY State Workers Comp Board telling us that we owe a "civil fine" of $4000 for not having the workers comp policy in place for a few weeks ($2k for every 10 days).

. . .

Perhaps Landing Gear and Analise should run for AG and see how long they stay in office after they try to throw 63-85% of Park Slope (for starters) nanny employers in prison.

Yeah it is fairly confusing. We ended up hiring someone to take care of the paperwork partially out of fear of what you experienced!

Did you end up having to pay the $4k or were you able to get out of it?

Good question. Trying to; haven't paid it yet. Funny thing is we hired a service to "take care of" the paperwork too!

Our moderator, dstan, has already requested that this thread not be personalized. While I have no interest in politics, I could be very tempted to throw 63-85% of the Park Slope population in prison, forget the nanny employers. :D

Anyone who ignores a penalty notice from the Workers Compensation Board is making a big mistake. The amount is not going to get smaller by itself. On the contrary, what could possibly have been negotiated downward will now increase and with collateral worse consequences. Many people think parking tickets are inconsequential as well but ignore just one and after a while, your car can be towed for it.

In case it's not already clear from this thread, your homeowner's insurance will not cover you for injuries sustained by a person in your employ whether or not she is on or off the books. Why play with fire?

Our moderator, dstan, has already requested that this thread not be personalized. While I have no interest in politics, I could be very tempted to throw 63-85% of the Park Slope population in prison, forget the nanny employers. :D

Anyone who ignores a penalty notice from the Workers Compensation Board is making a big mistake. The amount is not going to get smaller by itself. On the contrary, what could possibly have been negotiated downward will now increase and with collateral worse consequences. Many people think parking tickets are inconsequential as well but ignore just one and after a while, your car can be towed for it.

In case it's not already clear from this thread, your homeowner's insurance will not cover you for injuries sustained by a person in your employ whether or not she is on or off the books. Why play with fire?

Didn't mean to sound personal - apologies for that.

I should clarify that I am not ignoring the penalty notice. I am trying to negotiate it downward, as is the service we hired to deal with this stuff.

We ended up hiring someone to take care of the paperwork partially out of fear of what you experienced!



How much is it?

FYI, for those looking to hiring nannies above board, Senator Krueger has a helpful guide of the multiple steps you need to take: http://www.nysenate.gov/report/senator-krueger-introduces-guide-regulations-associated-employing-nanny-other-full-time-domes

It notes the need for insurance and the fines that can be accrued if you don't have it.

How much is it?

We actually have two services. The payroll service is like $75 a quarter. They handle paystubs, tax forms, etc. The other service is an attorney who focuses on this kind of thing. We haven't gotten a bill yet, but they're a friend. :)

We actually have two services. The payroll service is like $75 a quarter. They handle paystubs, tax forms, etc. The other service is an attorney who focuses on this kind of thing. We haven't gotten a bill yet, but they're a friend. :)

We used one of the ones on p.49 of the Park Slope nanny report. Setup fee was around $800 and quarterly fees are in the ballpark of what Sampras mentioned.

We used one of the ones on p.49 of the Park Slope nanny report. Setup fee was around $800 and quarterly fees are in the ballpark of what Sampras mentioned.

If you paid $800 for setup and you still ended up with a fine for $4000 I'd send them the bill!

Didn't mean to sound personal - apologies for that.

I should clarify that I am not ignoring the penalty notice. I am trying to negotiate it downward, as is the service we hired to deal with this stuff.

It's okay. :)

I am curious who is doing the negotiating for you. Very few people actually know anything about this. (Note well: I am not including myself in this category. I refer this out.)

We actually have two services. The payroll service is like $75 a quarter. They handle paystubs, tax forms, etc. The other service is an attorney who focuses on this kind of thing. We haven't gotten a bill yet, but they're a friend. :)

What does your lawyer handle?

We used one of the ones on p.49 of the Park Slope nanny report. Setup fee was around $800 and quarterly fees are in the ballpark of what Sampras mentioned.

Setup fee of $800????? Paychex and ADP don't charge that to set up a small payroll. For what are you paying?


If you paid $800 for setup and you still ended up with a fine for $4000 I'd send them the bill!

Good luck with that. :)

Oh before I forget, in addition to Workers Compensation, you probably also need state-mandated Disability coverage. This is NOT the item for which there is a payroll deduction. That is Social Security Disability, a different thing.

What does your lawyer handle?

She handles telling us what we need to be compliance with the law (insurance and so forth).

I forgot that we also have a CPA.

Turns out having a "small business" (according to the State of New York) requires quite a lot of warm bodies to make it work.


Oh before I forget, in addition to Workers Compensation, you probably also need state-mandated Disability coverage. This is NOT the item for which there is a payroll deduction. That is Social Security Disability, a different thing.

When you refer to Workers Compensation you mean a private insurance policy to cover your nanny, yes?

---

I agree with you 100% that few people know exactly what you need. It's really amazing how much is involved to be above board. One would think there would be an incentive to make things a bit easier; perhaps higher compliance?

xxxxxx

Setup fee of $800????? Paychex and ADP don't charge that to set up a small payroll. For what are you paying?

xxxxxxx

GTM handles all the payroll and supposedly all the interactions with the [redacted] in Albany. Plus they are supposed to handle all the docs and compliance, etc. Hence my annoyance with the $4k notice.

But this morning I have some tentatively good news. GTM called and said that they talked to someone at the Workers Comp Board and that the entire $4000 was waived! Supposedly the letter from Albany will come in the mail shortly.

But this morning I have some tentatively good news. GTM called and said that they talked to someone at the Workers Comp Board and that the entire $4000 was waived! Supposedly the letter from Albany will come in the mail shortly.

^

Good stuff!

^

Good stuff!

Ok I am impressed. The letter came and they waived the entire $4000 fine! I take back the nasty things I said about the fine folks in Albany.

What does your lawyer handle?



Setup fee of $800????? Paychex and ADP don't charge that to set up a small payroll. For what are you paying?




Good luck with that. :)

Oh before I forget, in addition to Workers Compensation, you probably also need state-mandated Disability coverage. This is NOT the item for which there is a payroll deduction. That is Social Security Disability, a different thing.

She handles telling us what we need to be compliance with the law (insurance and so forth).

Then this is just an occasional consultation?




When you refer to Workers Compensation you mean a private insurance policy to cover your nanny, yes?

Yes. There are several that do it. Some payroll companies also have insurance brokerages and can get you a workers comp policy.

N.B. 1. You are subject to audit requirements once a year for this.

2. Again, this is not the disability policy you also need.


I agree with you 100% that few people know exactly what you need. It's really amazing how much is involved to be above board. One would think there would be an incentive to make things a bit easier; perhaps higher compliance?

Thanks. Tell that to Cuomo, Silver and Skelos. Good luck with that. :D

Should be xxxxxx

Setup fee of $800????? Paychex and ADP don't charge that to set up a small payroll. For what are you paying?

xxxxxxx

GTM handles all the payroll and supposedly all the interactions with the [redacted] in Albany. Plus they are supposed to handle all the docs and compliance, etc. Hence my annoyance with the $4k notice.

But this morning I have some tentatively good news. GTM called and said that they talked to someone at the Workers Comp Board and that the entire $4000 was waived! Supposedly the letter from Albany will come in the mail shortly.

Ok I am impressed. The letter came and they waived the entire $4000 fine! I take back the nasty things I said about the fine folks in Albany.


I don't know what you mean by "[redacted]." What was redacted, someone's name or some colorful language meaning essentially, "jerks?"

If GTM got $4,000 reduced to zero, confirmed by the Workers Compensation Board, that tells me two things: 1. they did a good job; and 2. the State of New York is not cracking down on nanny employers who make an effort to comply. Trust me, they were going for blood in 2011 against every small business and nothing was negotiated down to zero.

By the way, I looked at GTM's website and I didn't see any $800 set up fees.

Don't forget the disability coverage!

By the way, are they filing an NYS-45 for you every quarter?

Then this is just an occasional consultation?


:confused: I don't understand your question. I don't consult with this person everyday, no.


2. the State of New York is not cracking down on nanny employers who make an effort to comply. Trust me, they were going for blood in 2011 against every small business and nothing was negotiated down to zero.


This is part of the problem. Suggesting, at the state level, that nanny employers are a small business is silly. There should be a distinction between nanny employers and other small businesses, IMHO.

:confused: I don't understand your question. I don't consult with this person everyday, no.

What I'm suggesting is that most nanny employers do not have to call a lawyer once a week or even once a month.



This is part of the problem. Suggesting, at the state level, that nanny employers are a small business is silly. There should be a distinction between nanny employers and other small businesses, IMHO.

I would agree with you that if the state wants increased compliance it needs to find an easier way for people to comply.

I most emphatically do not agree that people who employ workers, whether child care or otherwise and knowingly and willfully do not comply with the laws regarding taxes and insurance should get any better treatment than any other employers.

By the way, recently I needed a tree limb cut down in my garden. I asked the tree service for insurance certificates (workers comp, liability, etc.) and they provided them with no hesitation.

I would agree with you that if the state wants increased compliance it needs to find an easier way for people to comply.

Yep.


I most emphatically do not agree that people who employ workers, whether child care or otherwise and knowingly and willfully do not comply with the laws regarding taxes and insurance should get any better treatment than any other employers.

You must be emphatically disagreeing with someone else, because I never said anything close to that. In fact, I agree with you. There is no excuse for knowingly and willfully breaking the law (like so many do in this city regarding nannies, if the survey data is accurate).

But this is not to say that it is easy to comply or even easy to know what the laws are. That's the problem. I have a Ph.D. and find this stuff pretty complicated. My comment relates simply to this cumbersome and frankly opaque process. Expecting parents to know about small business law, employment procedures, etc. is a bit much. The process should be easier and made more clear.

And then to come after people with $4000 fines when they've been trying to comply with said opaque process is even worse.


By the way, recently I needed a tree limb cut down in my garden. I asked the tree service for insurance certificates (workers comp, liability, etc.) and they provided them with no hesitation.

Should parents be placed in a similar category as tree limb companies? I would suggest no. This is not to say that they should not need insurance but rather the procedures and policies should be clarified and simplified.

You must be emphatically disagreeing with someone else, because I never said anything close to that. In fact, I agree with you. There is no excuse for knowingly and willfully breaking the law (like so many do in this city regarding nannies, if the survey data is accurate).

Then let me make it clearer that I am expressing my disagreement with this way of thinking, to maintain continuity of the thread, and not with you.

But this is not to say that it is easy to comply or even easy to know what the laws are. That's the problem. I have a Ph.D. and find this stuff pretty complicated. My comment relates simply to this cumbersome and frankly opaque process. Expecting parents to know about small business law, employment procedures, etc. is a bit much.

I have a J.D. but I don't prepare my tax returns myself. I hire a CPA firm. So your point is?

The process should be easier and made more clear.

You could say that about many things, no?

And then to come after people with $4000 fines when they've been trying to comply with said opaque process is even worse.

I don't have to see any of the paper work to be pretty certain that is not what happened. What did happen is most likely the following: parents hired a nanny and then started the "opaque process." That's like getting on one of the new "pay in advance" buses and then looking to pay the fare.

They got the fine for allowing someone to work without insurance. Read this again. They got the penalty waived because the period that person worked without workers comp was short, there were no claims, and they came into compliance.



Should parents be placed in a similar category as tree limb companies? I would suggest no. This is not to say that they should not need insurance but rather the procedures and policies should be clarified and simplified.

Not my point. I mentioned that because I try and avoid getting sued. Call it risk management if you want. Most people don't ask for insurance certificates because they either don't know or don't care.

Then let me make it clearer that I am expressing my disagreement with this way of thinking, to maintain continuity of the thread, and not with you.

Good, clarity is golden.


I have a J.D. but I don't prepare my tax returns myself. I hire a CPA firm. So your point is?

My point is that this process is needlessly complex and opaque.


You could say that about many things, no?


Obviously. So what?


I don't have to see any of the paper work to be pretty certain that is not what happened. What did happen is most likely the following: parents hired a nanny and then started the "opaque process." That's like getting on one of the new "pay in advance" buses and then looking to pay the fare.

They got the fine for allowing someone to work without insurance. Read this again. They got the penalty waived because the period that person worked without workers comp was short, there were no claims, and they came into compliance.

That may very well be what happened. Or perhaps someone told them they didn't need the insurance. Or maybe someone told them that they would take care of the insurance. Or maybe no one told them that they needed the insurance. Or maybe the nanny wasn't working full time at first and then transitioned into a full-time role. My point is that "trying to comply" can encompass many different scenarios.


Not my point. I mentioned that because I try and avoid getting sued. Call it risk management if you want. Most people don't ask for insurance certificates because they either don't know or don't care.

I agree.

I don't have to see any of the paper work to be pretty certain that is not what happened. What did happen is most likely the following: parents hired a nanny and then started the "opaque process." That's like getting on one of the new "pay in advance" buses and then looking to pay the fare.

They got the fine for allowing someone to work without insurance. Read this again. They got the penalty waived because the period that person worked without workers comp was short, there were no claims, and they came into compliance.



That may very well be what happened. Or perhaps someone told them they didn't need the insurance. Or maybe someone told them that they would take care of the insurance. Or maybe no one told them that they needed the insurance. Or maybe the nanny wasn't working full time at first and then transitioned into a full-time role. My point is that "trying to comply" can encompass many different scenarios.





No, that's exactly what happened. I'll break down your alternatives:

1. "Or perhaps someone told them they didn't need the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.

2. "Or maybe someone told them that they would take care of the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.

3. "Or maybe no one told them that they needed the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.

4. "Or maybe the nanny wasn't working full time at first and then transitioned into a full-time role." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.

How many different ways are there for saying the maxim "look before you leap?" Ask questions before doing something you know nothing about like hiring a household employee.

The Byzantine (from a tech standpoint) FlyerTalk software is annoying to no end so let me simply say that you can call something "complex and opaque" which may or may not be true but that does not excuse people from failing to comply with the law. Otherwise, I think I'll try this if I get a recycling ticket.

No, that's exactly what happened. I'll break down your alternatives:

1. "Or perhaps someone told them they didn't need the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.

2. "Or maybe someone told them that they would take care of the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.

3. "Or maybe no one told them that they needed the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.

4. "Or maybe the nanny wasn't working full time at first and then transitioned into a full-time role." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.

How many different ways are there for saying the maxim "look before you leap?" Ask questions before doing something you know nothing about like hiring a household employee.

The Byzantine (from a tech standpoint) FlyerTalk software is annoying to no end so let me simply say that you can call something "complex and opaque" which may or may not be true but that does not excuse people from failing to comply with the law. Otherwise, I think I'll try this if I get a recycling ticket.

The question was regarding *attempts* to comply with the law. It is obvious that something went wrong; the relevant question is why. Attempting to comply and willfully avoiding compliance are two very different things, as you acknowledged. Recall your statement: "I most emphatically do not agree that people who employ workers, whether child care or otherwise and knowingly and willfully do not comply with the laws regarding taxes and insurance should get any better treatment than any other employers." We both agree. The relevant question, however, is what a good effort attempt at compliance looks like.

The question was regarding *attempts* to comply with the law. It is obvious that something went wrong; the relevant question is why. Attempting to comply and willfully avoiding compliance are two very different things, as you acknowledged. Recall your statement: "I most emphatically do not agree that people who employ workers, whether child care or otherwise and knowingly and willfully do not comply with the laws regarding taxes and insurance should get any better treatment than any other employers." We both agree. The relevant question, however, is what a good effort attempt at compliance looks like.

I'm at a loss for what you want or what point you are trying to make. The law is not to employ someone without having insurance in place. That's it.

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

The question was regarding *attempts* to comply with the law. It is obvious that something went wrong; the relevant question is why. Attempting to comply and willfully avoiding compliance are two very different things, as you acknowledged. Recall your statement: "I most emphatically do not agree that people who employ workers, whether child care or otherwise and knowingly and willfully do not comply with the laws regarding taxes and insurance should get any better treatment than any other employers." We both agree. The relevant question, however, is what a good effort attempt at compliance looks like.

I'm at a loss for what you want or what point you are trying to make. The law is not to employ someone without having insurance in place. That's it.

The point is that I think it is BS that the OP got a 4000 fine for trying to comply.

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)



The point is that I think it is BS that the OP got a 4000 fine for trying to comply.

No, he got the fine because he didn't comply--he hired someone without having workers compensation insurance in place.

That's all there is to it.

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)



The point is that I think it is BS that the OP got a 4000 fine for trying to comply.

No, he got the fine because he didn't comply--he hired someone without having workers compensation insurance in place.

That's all there is to it.

I thought you agreed that trying to comply is relevant?

We don't disagree on why the fine was levied: a law was broken. We apparently disagree on the merits of fining individuals who are clearly trying to comply (as evidenced by the hiring of GTM, paying the taxes, and so forth).

You are looking at this legally; I am looking at it politically. I think it makes little sense to fine the people who are trying to do the right thing, it just leads to less compliance. They should be focused on prosecuting folks who do not make an attempt to do this above board. That would be a far more rational approach. The $4000 fines just encourage people to not try at all.

I thought you agreed that trying to comply is relevant?

We don't disagree on why the fine was levied: a law was broken. We apparently disagree on the merits of fining individuals who are clearly trying to comply (as evidenced by the hiring of GTM, paying the taxes, and so forth).

You are looking at this legally; I am looking at it politically. I think it makes little sense to fine the people who are trying to do the right thing, it just leads to less compliance. They should be focused on prosecuting folks who do not make an attempt to do this above board. That would be a far more rational approach. The $4000 fines just encourage people to not try at all.

Let me break this down.

"You are looking at this legally; I am looking at it politically." That's exactly right. Here's another example: If your taxes are not paid by April 15, it doesn't matter if you tried to pay them, you failed to comply.

Google "strict liability."

Let me break this down.

"You are looking at this legally; I am looking at it politically." That's exactly right. Here's another example: If your taxes are not paid by April 15, it doesn't matter if you tried to pay them, you failed to comply.

Google "strict liability."

The legal question is boring and uninteresting. The OP broke the law. Easy enough.

What do you make of the political question? Does it make good sense for the state to go after parents who are trying to comply and have taken steps to do so? Do you feel that this is a good use of the state's time and resources? Do you agree that such enforcement likely makes compliance, perhaps counter-intuitively, even lower?

The legal question is boring and uninteresting. The OP broke the law. Easy enough.

What do you make of the political question? Does it make good sense for the state to go after parents who are trying to comply and have taken steps to do so? Do you feel that this is a good use of the state's time and resources? Do you agree that such enforcement likely makes compliance, perhaps counter-intuitively, even lower?

Maybe the law is "boring and uninteresting" to you but it's how I make my living. Enjoy the rest of this beautiful day.

Maybe the law is "boring and uninteresting" to you but it's how I make my living. Enjoy the rest of this beautiful day.

Most lawyers I know admit that the law is boring and uninteresting. :)

But that prevents you from discussing the politics of the situation? :confused:

Truly bizarre. Nevertheless, enjoy the weather. Not sure what the apparent hostility is all about.

Wow, not sure what to say to all the comments above. But the good news is that notwithstanding that I appear to have broken the law, although certainly not wilfully/willfully in this case (thank you for the benefit of the doubt here M.Sampras), the GTM service was able to prevail upon the State of NY Workers Comp Board to show mercy!

And now that my paranoia is through the roof, I will make sure that the disability is also still in place.

Re the GTM setup fee (which may not be disclosed on the website per LandingGear?), I went back and looked at my amex. The actual fee was $755 not $800.

And for the record, speaking for a (now) law abiding (I think/hope) NY couple with two JD degrees between us (both non-practicing), I agree that the actual breaking of the law for 23 days is much less interesting than the public policy discussion. How could it not be - either you have the insurance or you don't, i.e. "strict liability" as someone said?

The legal question is boring and uninteresting. The OP broke the law. Easy enough.

Not to be annoying here but to be clear, you were the OP, but I was the one who broke the law. Unless this is a veiled confession. ;)

And I agree that sending out $4k notices to nanny employers who are at least trying to comply with the various laws and regs seems (from a public policy standpoint, Landing Gear) to be a bit counterproductive.

The legal question is boring and uninteresting. The OP broke the law. Easy enough.

Not to be annoying here but to be clear, you were the OP, but I was the one who broke the law. Unless this is a veiled confession. ;)

Oops, my bad, you indeed are the one that broke the law. :)

I forgot I had started this thread (because back then I was interested in the norms regarding nanny pay, not the overzealous nature of the state in prosecuting parents who are trying to comply. :)


And I agree that sending out $4k notices to nanny employers who are at least trying to comply with the various laws and regs seems (from a public policy standpoint, Landing Gear) to be a bit counterproductive.

^

And let me be clear: I don't think breaking the law is a good thing. There should be punishment for it (under most circumstances). But here it seems like the punishment you faced didn't fit he crime and, worse, it's things like this that make that 70-80% non-compliance number that high.