WWTBAM Bored

I don't know if Caroline K had this issue or not...but every time I hear about someone who has failed to declare/pay taxes on their nanny it infuriates me. Some of you may remember that we went this route several years ago--before we started with the au pairs. We did everything by the book and it nearly broke us...salary, health insurance, taxes, social security, and of course the fees we had to pay to the firm that did it for us (nearly impossible to do on your own unless you're a CPA.

Our seemingly affordable salary wound up setting us back nearly $36,000 for the year--almost double even the priciest daycare at the time. And...she did all the normal employee things like call in sick, show up late, have car trouble--all understandable--but each one would cost us time from work...even more money lost.

But we did it and we did it right. When I see people of wealth pull stunts like this--in my mind it DOES instantly disqualify them from office. Anyone with that sort of sense of entitlement and disdain should not be a public servant in any way.

Buffacuse wrote:I don't know if Caroline K had this issue or not...but every time I hear about someone who has failed to declare/pay taxes on their nanny it infuriates me. Some of you may remember that we went this route several years ago--before we started with the au pairs. We did everything by the book and it nearly broke us...salary, health insurance, taxes, social security, and of course the fees we had to pay to the firm that did it for us (nearly impossible to do on your own unless you're a CPA.

Our seemingly affordable salary wound up setting us back nearly $36,000 for the year--almost double even the priciest daycare at the time. And...she did all the normal employee things like call in sick, show up late, have car trouble--all understandable--but each one would cost us time from work...even more money lost.

But we did it and we did it right. When I see people of wealth pull stunts like this--in my mind it DOES instantly disqualify them from office. Anyone with that sort of sense of entitlement and disdain should not be a public servant in any way.

Agreed, as long as said public servant realized they weren't complying with the law. And admittedly, someone of means probably ought to be able to figure it out. But I'd be willing to listen to someone who honestly didn't realize they were out of compliance. --Bob

With all the publicity this issue received in 1993 with the various Attorneys-General designates, how could someone, expecting to serve in the high levels of government someday, not be aware?

The rules may be onerous, but everyone has to play by them. Conduct otherwise suggests a sense of entitlement which I also find offensive.

I am much more troubled by these issues than I am about personal indiscretions of a physical nature. It suggests that things really aren't going to change because the wealthy and influential don't see the need to modify their conduct.

bazodee wrote:With all the publicity this issue received in 1993 with the various Attorneys-General designates, how could someone, expecting to serve in the high levels of government someday, not be aware?

Depending on facts, whether someone is a "household employee" (the status which triggers many of these requirements) can be a close question. Not in the case of a traditional nanny, but it's easy for me to envision circumstances where someone gets good faith and reasonable but erroneous advice that the person in question is not a "household employee" and therefore is not subject to the various requirements we're talking about. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:it's easy for me to envision circumstances where someone gets good faith and reasonable but erroneous advice that the person in question is not a "household employee" and therefore is not subject to the various requirements we're talking about.

Or just to claim they received such advice.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:it's easy for me to envision circumstances where someone gets good faith and reasonable but erroneous advice that the person in question is not a "household employee" and therefore is not subject to the various requirements we're talking about.

Or just to claim they received such advice.

It would be verifiable. There would be a bill. And even if it comes from a lawyer, as soon as the candidate talks about it, he or she has waived privilege. --Bob

I'd figure that anyone named Kennedy would have enough money that they would have been above the law by now. I feel sorry for all you peasants out there who actually have to pay attention to stuff like that... (Sniff) sorry, pardon me while I cry in this thousand dollar bill....

Bob78164 wrote:

Buffacuse wrote:I don't know if Caroline K had this issue or not...but every time I hear about someone who has failed to declare/pay taxes on their nanny it infuriates me. Some of you may remember that we went this route several years ago--before we started with the au pairs. We did everything by the book and it nearly broke us...salary, health insurance, taxes, social security, and of course the fees we had to pay to the firm that did it for us (nearly impossible to do on your own unless you're a CPA.

Our seemingly affordable salary wound up setting us back nearly $36,000 for the year--almost double even the priciest daycare at the time. And...she did all the normal employee things like call in sick, show up late, have car trouble--all understandable--but each one would cost us time from work...even more money lost.

But we did it and we did it right. When I see people of wealth pull stunts like this--in my mind it DOES instantly disqualify them from office. Anyone with that sort of sense of entitlement and disdain should not be a public servant in any way.

Agreed, as long as said public servant realized they weren't complying with the law. And admittedly, someone of means probably ought to be able to figure it out. But I'd be willing to listen to someone who honestly didn't realize they were out of compliance. --Bob

I'm kind of thinking that anyone who can read and has even a passing acquaintance with or interest in politics would MAKE this their business to find out the right way to do things. I wasn't born knowing I needed to pay taxes but somewhere along the way I found out I did.

Even with the normal amount of cynicism I usually have, I would be truly, truly disappointed to find out that Caroline Kenneday skirted or circumvented paying proper taxes. Don't know particularly why as I have no particular fondness for her, but I just would be disappointed.

DevilKitty100 wrote:I'm kind of thinking that anyone who can read and has even a passing acquaintance with or interest in politics would MAKE this their business to find out the right way to do things. I wasn't born knowing I needed to pay taxes but somewhere along the way I found out I did.

The point I make later in the thread is that there are factual settings in this area in which the law's requirements can be a matter for good faith difference of opinion. Not in a standard "nanny" situation, but I can envision possibilities. --Bob