Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Article: Nannies cash in on cash-in-hand economy

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    In my Zombie proof fortress.
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Article: Nannies cash in on cash-in-hand economy

    Thought this was worth posting for those considering hiring a nanny.

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/na...804-23mnf.html

    UP TO 20 per cent of nannies are being paid cash in hand, exposing them and their employers to legal risks, a new lobby group warns.
    The Australian Nanny Association was incorporated last month to push for increased regulation and oversight of the industry. A key goal is for the 50 per cent childcare rebate available to families who use childcare centres to be paid to parents who choose in-home care.
    Spokeswoman Annemarie Sansom said members of the association estimated up to 30,000 nannies were working in Australian homes.
    ''We think about 15 and up to 20 per cent are working without declaring it and not paying tax,'' said Ms Sansom, owner of the Night Nannies agency.
    Advertisement
    ''People are finding nannies through websites and not realising the implications of just paying cash and not declaring it.''
    Risks for nannies and employers operating in the cash economy included issues related to inadequate training, workplace injury and a lack of liability insurance. Ms Sansom said while nannies had the benefit of being paid tax free, they did not earn superannuation or holiday pay.
    Anecdotally, parents have told The Sunday Age that it is easier and cheaper to pay nannies cash in hand than via an agency that takes a cut.
    ''It is a total black market. When [my children] were younger, I spent 30K-plus a year cash, post tax to stay in the workforce. Private school fees are easy by comparison,'' one mother said.
    An Australian Taxation Office spokesman said people can earn up to $18,200 before they are required to declare the income and pay tax.
    The debate over rebates for nannies is becoming increasingly political, with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott pledging that a Coalition government would, early in its first term, ask the Productivity Commission to model the cost of extending the childcare rebate to in-home care, such as nannies. Britain, New Zealand, Canada and the United States all subsidise parents to employ nannies. But industry observer Lora Brawley said the black market also played a strong role in the industry in the US. She said of 2 million US nannies just 10 per cent paid tax.
    Mr Abbott and Coalition spokeswoman on childcare Sussan Ley recently met representatives of the Nanny Association. It has requested a meeting with Early Childhood and Childcare Minister Kate Ellis. Ms Ellis has argued that extending the rebate would drain $2 billion from funds allocated to childcare and even then the cost of a nanny would remain unaffordable for most families.
    Ms Sansom argues that paying the rebate to families who use nannies would be a hefty incentive to encourage them to only use those who paid tax and adhered to workplace laws.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ouiinslano
    Posts
    5,303

    Default

    I think it's more than 20%.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In Bankworld with Barbara
    Posts
    14,222

    Default

    I reckon only 20% would be a very conservative estimate as well. I wonder if they are taking into account friends and grandparents etc in that number? Or the teenage daughter of your next door neighbour who has the kids after school for you? I made a heap of money as a teen doing babysitting for various people and it was all cash.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In my own private paradise
    Posts
    15,272

    Default

    i would assume they would be considering the people who are actually employed as a "nanny" or "au pair" as opposed to private baby sitting arrangements. a lot of nannies and au pairs have found themselves forced into registration by smarter parents who know that they can get child care benefit (registered care) payments - it's only 60 odd cents per kidlet per hour, but there are many claims going through - as a result, the carer has to registered with FAO, which ripples to other departments so they can't hide it so much. i do tend to agree 20% is probably a conservative estimate though

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ouiinslano
    Posts
    5,303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by briggsy's girl View Post
    i would assume they would be considering the people who are actually employed as a "nanny" or "au pair" as opposed to private baby sitting arrangements. a lot of nannies and au pairs have found themselves forced into registration by smarter parents who know that they can get child care benefit (registered care) payments - it's only 60 odd cents per kidlet per hour, but there are many claims going through - as a result, the carer has to registered with FAO, which ripples to other departments so they can't hide it so much. i do tend to agree 20% is probably a conservative estimate though
    I have done both - cash in hand, fully on the books, and been a registered carer. For jobs where parents wanted me to file the paperwork, I charged more. Silly not to, I reckon.

    I don't think there's many that do cash jobs long term. Leave isn't so much an issue, but super was what stopped me doing it.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In my own private paradise
    Posts
    15,272

    Default

    you'd be surprised at the number of people that just don't care about super...


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •