I think this is a case of going after the "big or bigger fish." I doubt that the Department of Labor has enough personnel to go after private citizens that knowingly break the law in this instance. Seems like I remember some US Representatives or Senators or Supreme Court Justices that got in trouble for this sort of thing, but can't remember who they were.

Except that Rupert didn't say that at all. What he said was:

"In addition, you are technically supposed to withhold Social Security and Medicare tax from your housekeeper. Practically nobody does that."

There's no "knowingly" implication that I can see.

Practically everyone I know has a housekeeper.

Are there some American housekeepers out there. Yes, absolutely. But where I live (in Los Angeles), practically all the housekeepers are either from Mexico or Central America. Some of them are legal aliens, but most of them are illegal aliens.

I never said it wasn't honest work.

Do most people who employ illegal aliens know that they are illegal? I would say in most cases the answer is yes. I don't think that most people ask and I don't think that most people care. They just want an employee who is honest and who will do a good job.

I think most people know that it is technically illegal to have an illegal alien working for them. But it's obviously not enforced. There are around 12-15 million illegal aliens working in the US.

Do most people know that if they have a housekeeper that comes once a week that they pay cash, that they technically are supposed to withhold Social Security and Medicare? I would say that most people probably do not know that.

By the way, the employer is not always required to pay social security. The law is strange. If the worker brings their own supplies and decides on their own how to do the job, then you don't need to pay. But if they use your supplies and you tell them how to do the job, then you do have to pay. Most people do not know that.

"A housekeeper is self-employed if she works for more than one client, sets her own schedule and provides her own supplies. She works under her own direction – you might tell her you’d like her to clean the bathrooms, but you don’t tell her how to accomplish the task. She might advertise her services to an array of clients, and she chooses what work to take and when to fit the work into her schedule." In this case you would not have to pay her Social security.

"Someone is your employee if you set her schedule, dictate her duties and provide the supplies she uses. If your housekeeper has regular hours in your home, you provide the cleaning supplies, and you dictate her duties and how they are to be accomplished, you are acting as the housekeeper’s employer. As an employer, you need to withhold Social Security and Medicare tax from your employee’s wages." In this case you would need to pay her Social security.

https://work.chron.com/tax-rules-emp...per-10188.html

Someone who comes every couple weeks to clean your house or cut your grass or whatever isn’t your employee. He/she is an independent contractor responsible for their own taxes. Rupert is confused with someone that is there every day and you are their only customer.

Sorry I'm just some poor guy who knows more housekeepers than people who have em. My bad.

It all makes sense now.

Jim, That's not true. Read the article that I linked. Even if the housekeeper only come once every two weeks, you are still responsible in some cases. The article explains which cases. A person could always try to make the argument that their housekeeper (who comes once every two weeks) is an independent contractor. But the law is pretty specific as to under what circumstances a housekeeper is an independent contractor versus when she is an employee. I'm sure most people think that their housekeeper (who comes once every week or two) is independent, but as the article shows, in many cases they are not.

If you think that only rich people have housekeepers (that come once every week or two), you are totally out of touch with the real world.

:tro::tro::tro:

Brace yourself....I agree with you. I read his post this morning and avoided it because I knew nothing good was going to come of it.

I have an idea of what he’s trying to say, he just can’t help how it comes out though.

Maybe your world, not mine. We actually mow our own lawns, shovel snow, and clean our own house like our parents required us to do growing up.

You obviously had no idea of what I was trying to say. My point was simple. My point is that the government can go after anyone they want to. Millions of people are technically breaking the law all the time. If the government decides that they are going to start enforcing something out of the blue, practically anyone could be in trouble for something. That was the point, period.

Don’t bother me right now. I’m busy cleaning my house.

I don't think one way is better than the other. I wouldn't judge someone either way. Some people enjoy doing their own gardening. Other people leave it up to a gardener. It's a personal choice.