Eappen Family Secrets
dcruz
> You're feeling that sort of thing as well, huh? In the UK, we got a
> couple of ex-Eappen nannies suggesting all sorts of stuff about the
> parents. Does it look to you that the parents were more interested in
> working than the kid?? Does it seem that the nannies left once they
> stopped being teenagers?? Am I suggesting that the father of the kid
> wasn't looking at the mother of the kid in that courtroom, because she
> was back in Europe?? If Woodward did kill that kid, then she should die,
> but I sense there's a little bit more to this one...
>
Carolyn
dcruz <dc...@cts.com> wrote in article <346C70...@cts.com>...
> > You're feeling that sort of thing as well, huh? In the UK, we got a
> > couple of ex-Eappen nannies suggesting all sorts of stuff about the
> > parents.
Do you? Specifically which ones? Enquiring minds want to know, m'dear.
Does it look to you that the parents were more interested in
> > working than the kid??
No. If you mean than in the kid, that is. I think their children meant
the world to them.
Does it seem that the nannies left once they
> > stopped being teenagers??
No. The first two left after their one-year contracts were up. The third
left because she didn't work out. The last one left because she killed
their baby son.
Am I suggesting that the father of the kid
> > wasn't looking at the mother of the kid in that courtroom, because she
> > was back in Europe??
If you are, you must be talking about a different Eappan family than I am.
If Woodward did kill that kid, then she should die,
> > but I sense there's a little bit more to this one...
You are clearly nuts. If Woodward did kill that kid, she should die? What
kind of society do you come from, dcruz? You frighten me!
Maggie8097
glas wrote:
Then why on earth didn't they pay for real child care? Don't even tell me
that they couldn't afford it. Also, why did they need a FULL TIME nanny if
Deborah only worked PART TIME?
***The Eappens paid $115 per week, plus a $4200 placement fee, plus room and
board to Louise Woodward--by even an extrememly conservative estimate around
$6 per hour, pretty good for an inexperienced teenager . She returned the
favor by murdering their son.
You seem to be saying that if the Eappens had paid more for child care, Matthew
would still be alive. I assume that means you believe that Louise did,
indeed, murder Matthew. I agree. If she didn't kill him, why would it
matter how much they paid her?
And in my experience, most professional mothers who work part-time and have
in-home childcare, have full-time help. These women don't punch a time clock.
They don't run out to their cars when the factory whistle blows. They have
to be available outside of their regular work hours for unexpected meetings,
appointments, etc. Additionally, DE was studying for her board certification
exams and used part of her free time to bone up.
Maggie
"We're having some fun now." --S. Martin and D. Ackroyd
Pat Winstanley
In article <64i77e$8...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Carolyn
<Caro...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>dcruz <dc...@cts.com> wrote in article <346C70...@cts.com>...
>> > You're feeling that sort of thing as well, huh? In the UK, we got a
>> > couple of ex-Eappen nannies suggesting all sorts of stuff about the
>> > parents.
>
>Do you? Specifically which ones? Enquiring minds want to know, m'dear.
>
> Does it look to you that the parents were more interested in
>> > working than the kid??
>
>No. If you mean than in the kid, that is. I think their children meant
>the world to them.
>
> Does it seem that the nannies left once they
>> > stopped being teenagers??
>
>No. The first two left after their one-year contracts were up. The third
>left because she didn't work out. The last one left because she killed
>their baby son.
You know, that's interesting. The first two who did their full year
would have had only the older son to deal with. The one who "didn't work
out" would have had the older son and the baby, as did LW.
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html
Greg Goss
maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097) wrote:
>You seem to be saying that if the Eappens had paid more for child care, Matthew
> would still be alive. I assume that means you believe that Louise did,
> indeed, murder Matthew. I agree. If she didn't kill him, why would it
> matter how much they paid her?
I didn't follow the case, so my knowledge of the central facts of the
case is light, but one thing stands out. Woodward was young. Young
people are by nature impulsive. Older people make better mothers or
in loco parents.
If indeed Woodward did the deed, then someone with more life
experience may have avoided escalating the mood to violence.
Martha Sprowles
I don't know who did it, but I do believe from what I've read that there
was reasonable doubt about LW's guilt. That said, I must take issue
with Maggie's assertion that $6/hr is plenty for taking care of two
young children as well as whatever light housework LW was to do. The
teenagers around here get $4-5 for babysitting with no other duties.
Plus, LW was apparently responsible for the two boys all day long. This
is very, very hard work.
While I don't want to get on any "Blame the Parents" bandwagon, I do
disapprove of their attempt to get such cheap childcare. Six dollars an
hour for long days, a curfew, and limited phone time--and caring for two
little boys! I doubt that you'd find many qualified caregivers lining
up for the job at those wages!
Martha Sprowles
glas
Martha Sprowles wrote sagely...
>>
>
>I don't know who did it, but I do believe from what I've read that there
>was reasonable doubt about LW's guilt. That said, I must take issue
>with Maggie's assertion that $6/hr is plenty for taking care of two
>young children as well as whatever light housework LW was to do. The
>teenagers around here get $4-5 for babysitting with no other duties.
>Plus, LW was apparently responsible for the two boys all day long. This
>is very, very hard work.
>
>While I don't want to get on any "Blame the Parents" bandwagon, I do
>disapprove of their attempt to get such cheap childcare. Six dollars an
>hour for long days, a curfew, and limited phone time--and caring for two
>little boys! I doubt that you'd find many qualified caregivers lining
>up for the job at those wages!
>
And don't forget Martha, that six dollars an hour is partially in room and
board. They were actually paying her $114 dollars a week (a little more
than $2. an hour). The room and board is quesionable as far as how much it
was worth. She had little privacy and plenty of restrictions attached to it
so that diminishes it's value greatly in my opinion.
glas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A good friend will help you move....
A REAL friend will help you move a body : )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bored? Try this...
http://www.interaxs.net/pub/glas/
dc...@cts.com
In article <3479d00a...@news.direct.ca>,
gg...@direct.ca (Greg Goss) wrote:
>
> maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097) wrote:
>
> >You seem to be saying that if the Eappens had paid more for child care,
Matthew
> > would still be alive. I assume that means you believe that Louise did,
> > indeed, murder Matthew. I agree. If she didn't kill him, why would it
> > matter how much they paid her?
>
> I didn't follow the case, so my knowledge of the central facts of the
> case is light, but one thing stands out. Woodward was young. Young
> people are by nature impulsive. Older people make better mothers or
> in loco parents.
dcruz's theory sounds highly plausible to me. Many mothers kill or
physically abuse their babies, yet outwardly appear caring. I have seen
this in paediatric ICU's and there was a recent news item in the UK about
a Paediatric unit where mothers suspected of abuse were videoed IN
HOSPITAL abusing their children when they though no one was looking. SIDS
is being increasingly reappraised. Read accounts by paediatricians
involved in this sort of thing: the mothers say things like "I just
looked at him [the baby] and really hated him". It is not related to
wealth/class PDB
>
> If indeed Woodward did the deed, then someone with more life
> experience may have avoided escalating the mood to violence.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
N.A.F. McNelly
In article <8797366...@dejanews.com>, dc...@cts.com wrote:
: dcruz's theory sounds highly plausible to me.
So you agree with yourself?
.................................................................
Nancy McNelly
http://www.halfmoon.org/
Maggie8097
Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
From: dc...@cts.com
Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 10:32 PM
Message-id: <8797366...@dejanews.com>
<snip>
dcruz's theory sounds highly plausible to me. Many mothers kill or
physically abuse their babies, yet outwardly appear caring. I have seen
this in paediatric ICU's and there was a recent news item in the UK about
a Paediatric unit where mothers suspected of abuse were videoed IN
HOSPITAL abusing their children when they though no one was looking. SIDS
is being increasingly reappraised. Read accounts by paediatricians
involved in this sort of thing: the mothers say things like "I just
looked at him [the baby] and really hated him". It is not related to
wealth/class PDB
****Ooops, dcruz. Did you forget which screen name you were posting under?
Maggie
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth." --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
MSLU123
The thing that bothered me about Ms. Eappen was she tried to get her oldest son
to say on tape that Louie was a bad person and hurt Matthew. What kind of
woman is that?
sue
Maggie8097 wrote:
> glas wrote:
> Then why on earth didn't they pay for real child care? Don't even
> tell me
> that they couldn't afford it. Also, why did they need a FULL TIME
> nanny if
> Deborah only worked PART TIME?
>
> ***The Eappens paid $115 per week, plus a $4200 placement fee, plus
> room and
> board to Louise Woodward--by even an extrememly conservative estimate
> around
> $6 per hour, pretty good for an inexperienced teenager . She
> returned the
> favor by murdering their son.
>
> You seem to be saying that if the Eappens had paid more for child
> care, Matthew
> would still be alive. I assume that means you believe that Louise
> did,
> indeed, murder Matthew. I agree. If she didn't kill him, why would
> it
> matter how much they paid her?
>
> And in my experience, most professional mothers who work part-time and
> have
> in-home childcare, have full-time help. These women don't punch a
> time clock.
> They don't run out to their cars when the factory whistle blows.
> They have
> to be available outside of their regular work hours for unexpected
> meetings,
> appointments, etc. Additionally, DE was studying for her board
> certification
> exams and used part of her free time to bone up.
>
> Maggie
>
> "We're having some fun now." --S. Martin and D. Ackroyd
Glas, your argument is ridiculous. Tons of working mothers use au
pairs, and not because it is "cheaper" child care. There are advantages
to au pairs, because they are contracted to stay with your family for an
extended period of time, UNLIKE a live in nanny, who can easily take off
and leave the family stranded (this happened to a friend of mine while
she was on vacation with her husband. She called home, and voila! No
nanny. )
Also, it is pretty rare to find a part time live in nanny, or a part
time nanny who doesn't live with the family.
You know, we know, everybody knows that Louise is a baby killer,
regardless of how much she was paid.
Sue
mpo...@peachnet.campus.mci.net
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:46:24 -0800, sue <incr...@megsinet.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>You know, we know, everybody knows that Louise is a baby killer,
>regardless of how much she was paid.
>Sue
Hello,
Actually, judging from the evidence that was presented in court, I do NOT
know that Louise is a baby killer beyond a reasonable doubt. So, please do
NOT include me in your everybody.
.......Missy
___________________________
Learn More About
Multiple Sclerosis
http://www.nmss.org/
___________________________
BVendig
And don't forget Martha, that six dollars an hour is partially in room and
board. They were actually paying her $114 dollars a week (a little more
than $2. an hour). The room and board is quesionable as far as how much it
was worth. She had little privacy and plenty of restrictions attached to it
so that diminishes it's value greatly in my opinion.
glas
****
If she was unhappy she could have left. She didn't have to kill their child to
protest the low pay.
Captive964
Oh Lord, this is ridiculous! The girl was slave labor! $5.25 x 40 = 210.00 + 5
x 7.88=39.40 for a grand total of 249.40. This means that she was paying
134.40 a week for room and board. 537 bucks is a lot per month if you consider
that she was at their beck and call 24 hours a day. You can sit there and say
"no, her contract stated blah, blah, blah" but you can bet that if the Eappens
wanted to go out at night and she refused to babysit they would have given her
a lot of grief. Plus, there were two children, the older being by conservative
estimations "spirited" ( and by the way, a fine speaker at the grand old age
of two) and the other one eight months old and not sitting up yet. If Matthew
was lagging developmentally and Deborah blamed Louise, why the heck didn't she
fire her or stay at home or have Sunil stay at home?
Captive
Maggie8097
glas wrote:
And don't forget Martha, that six dollars an hour is partially in room and
board. They were actually paying her $114 dollars a week (a little more
than $2. an hour). The room and board is quesionable as far as how much it
was worth. She had little privacy and plenty of restrictions attached to it
so that diminishes it's value greatly in my opinion.
***Apparently it was sufficient to entice Louise to travel across the ocean to
take the job. The salary was set by the au pair agency and she knew about it
before she left England. She interviewed with the family before she took the
job, met the children and saw the accomodations. If there was anything
unsatisfactory about the situation she could have declined the job offer.
geminiwalker
BVendig wrote:
>
> And don't forget Martha, that six dollars an hour is partially in room and
> board. They were actually paying her $114 dollars a week (a little more
> than $2. an hour). The room and board is quesionable as far as how much it
> was worth. She had little privacy and plenty of restrictions attached to it
> so that diminishes it's value greatly in my opinion.
>
> ****
> If she was unhappy she could have left. She didn't have to kill their child to
> protest the low pay.
No, but it certainly would have increased her
stress level...contributing to aggravated assault/
manslaughter, perhaps, but *not* murder2...
...kate
http://www.geminiwalker.com
glas
sue wrote ...
>
>
> Glas, your argument is ridiculous. Tons of working mothers use au
>pairs, and not because it is "cheaper" child care. There are advantages
>to au pairs, because they are contracted to stay with your family for an
>extended period of time, UNLIKE a live in nanny, who can easily take off
>and leave the family stranded (this happened to a friend of mine while
>she was on vacation with her husband. She called home, and voila! No
>nanny. )
>
>Also, it is pretty rare to find a part time live in nanny, or a part
>time nanny who doesn't live with the family.
>
>regardless of how much she was paid.
>Sue
>
Maybe "you" believe she is a baby killer, but I'm not convinced and there
seem to be several other people that aren't either.
glas
sch...@mindnospring.com
On 18 Nov 1997 17:45:18 GMT, maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097) wrote:
>glas wrote:
>And don't forget Martha, that six dollars an hour is partially in room and
>board. They were actually paying her $114 dollars a week (a little more
>than $2. an hour). The room and board is quesionable as far as how much it
>was worth. She had little privacy and plenty of restrictions attached to it
>so that diminishes it's value greatly in my opinion.
>
>***Apparently it was sufficient to entice Louise to travel across the ocean to
> take the job. The salary was set by the au pair agency and she knew about it
> before she left England. She interviewed with the family before she took the
> job, met the children and saw the accomodations. If there was anything
> unsatisfactory about the situation she could have declined the job offer.
>
>Maggie
>
>"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
> must be the truth." --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Maggie, she was a kid. When I was in college (nearly 20 years ago), I
gor a job which paid $460. per month for 20 hours per week. I thought
I was rich, moved out of the dorms (against my parents wishes) and
commenced paying my own way. Naive, yes.
Also, it is not possible to know how far foreign currency really goes
until you have lived in that country. It is not so simple as saying
"x pounds = y dollars".
This is in no way relevant to the case, but it is absurdly low wages
for a very difficult job.
-Sal
W Hingerty
geminiwalker <chu...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<3471C7...@earthlink.net>...
> BVendig wrote:
> >
> > And don't forget Martha, that six dollars an hour is partially in room
and
> > board. They were actually paying her $114 dollars a week (a little
more
> > than $2. an hour). The room and board is quesionable as far as how
much it
> > was worth. She had little privacy and plenty of restrictions attached
to it
> > so that diminishes it's value greatly in my opinion.
> >
> > glas
> > ****
> > If she was unhappy she could have left. She didn't have to kill their
child to
> > protest the low pay.
>
I dont think it would have been that easy for her to leave. She was more or
less stranded wasnt she?I would think that two MDs could afford to pay
alittle more. I guess you pay for what you get. My son is the most
important thing in my life and the person who would care for him, would be
worth more than that, and Im a lowly factory worker. Besides I think it was
an accident anyway. I think the shaking was a panic reaction that came
after the little guy hit his head and she couldnt revive him. I have lost a
child too and I know how it feels, my heart goes out to the parents. Its
just a sad story all around and I dont think giving the girl a life "bit"
would have helped.The prisons are already full of people who were shafted.
I know I was one of them, the victim of a public defender.
sue
glas wrote:
I'm cool with that. I would never presume to be the only opinion out
there! I guess that is why there is that whole "debate" thing going
on...
Sue
Martha Sprowles
Maggie8097 wrote:
>
> glas wrote:
> And don't forget Martha, that six dollars an hour is partially in room and
> board. They were actually paying her $114 dollars a week (a little more
> than $2. an hour). The room and board is quesionable as far as how much it
> was worth. She had little privacy and plenty of restrictions attached to it
> so that diminishes it's value greatly in my opinion.
>
> take the job. The salary was set by the au pair agency and she knew about it
> before she left England. She interviewed with the family before she took the
> job, met the children and saw the accomodations. If there was anything
> unsatisfactory about the situation she could have declined the job offer.
>
Dear Maggie,
I don't say that it was inadequate pay in Louise's eyes, just that it
was certainly the cheap way out for the Eappenses.
Martha
Maggie8097
glas wrote:
> And don't forget Martha, that six dollars an hour is partially in room and
> board. They were actually paying her $114 dollars a week (a little more
> than $2. an hour). The room and board is quesionable as far as how much it
> was worth. She had little privacy and plenty of restrictions attached to it
> so that diminishes it's value greatly in my opinion.
>
> ***Apparently it was sufficient to entice Louise to travel across the ocean
to
> take the job. The salary was set by the au pair agency and she knew about
it
> before she left England. She interviewed with the family before she took
the
> job, met the children and saw the accomodations. If there was anything
> unsatisfactory about the situation she could have declined the job offer.
>
Martha wrote:
I don't say that it was inadequate pay in Louise's eyes, just that it
was certainly the cheap way out for the Eappenses.
***I agree 100%- they would likely have had to pay a couple of hundred dollars
a week more for an experienced live-in. I'm just objecting to claims that
Louise was taken advantage of by the Eappens. I think that both parties
entered into the arrangement thinking it was a good deal for them. And they
both seem to have been mistaken.
Sharonilee
>> If she was unhappy she could have left. She didn't have to kill their
>child to
>> protest the low pay.
>
>
Oooooookay. "We've gone from Louise didn't do it" to "If she did, it was an
accident" to "She's a nasty little witch with a rotten temper and she meant
to hurt that baby" to " SHe killed the baby cuz she wanted to get back at
the parents for not paying her enough"....The first three explanations are at
least rational; the last one is juuuuuuuust a bit over the top! I'd be
laughing if this wasn't so tragic.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Tue, Nov 18, 1997 12:47 EST
This program is conceived for upper income families:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copied article:
GREENWICH, Conn., Oct. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- President Clinton today signed a bill
that permanently authorizes
the international au pair program, which is under the auspices of the United
States Information Agency (USIA).
The legislation, Senate Bill 1211, ends the requirement for periodic
Congressional re-authorization.
"In essence, au pair programs have been viewed as 'test' programs for the past
eleven years. We have been
waiting for permanent designation for a long time," says Robert Brennan,
president, American Institute For
Foreign Study, the organization that launched Au Pair in America, the country's
oldest and largest au pair
program. "Finally gaining permanent status says to us that Congress is
confident that the au pair program is a
viable, cultural exchange and child care model," says Brennan. This legislation
also prevents any possible
interruptions in the application process, which is critical to families who
select the au pair program as their
primary means of childcare. "Balancing family and work issues is stressful
enough." says Brennan. "Families
want to know that they can rely on a program like Au Pair in America to provide
them with screened and
competent live-in child care assistance."
Au Pair in America annually brings in more than 4,000 English-speaking au pairs
from around the globe,
providing families in 38 states with affordable child care, and the benefits of
a cultural exchange program. Au
pair means "on par" or equal, meaning how the young person is expected to fit
into the family.
The program allows au pairs to stay a year in the U.S. with legal, J-1 visas,
issued under the auspices of the
USIA. Au pairs provide 45 hours of child care per week and are also required to
take advantage of educational
and cultural benefits of the host community. Au Pair in America's local
Community Counselors, who provide a
support network in more than 180 areas of the country, arrange cultural and
social activities for the au pairs
throughout the year.
The Au Pair in America program costs approximately $235 per week, which
includes the au pair's pocket money,
screening, insurance, visa, orientation and air fare. Families also pay an
educational allowance. Upon arrival in
the U.S., au pairs participate in an orientation program that includes CPR, Red
Cross safety training and child
care classes.
For further information, contact Au Pair in America, Dept. PB, 102 Greenwich
Avenue, Greenwich, CT 06830 or
call 800-9-AU-PAIR. Information on the Internet is available at
http://www.aifs.com.
SOURCE American Institute for Foreign Study
-------------------end of copy-----------------------------------
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Sat, Nov 15, 1997 09:40 EST
>Message-id: <19971115144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>glas wrote:
Then why on earth didn't they pay for real child care? Don't even tell me that
they couldn't afford it. Also, why did they need a
FULL TIME nanny if Deborah only worked PART TIME? >
>***The Eappens paid $115 per week, plus a $4200 placement fee, plus room and
board to Louise Woodward--by even an extremely conservative estimate around
$6 per hour, pretty
good for an inexperienced teenager . She returned the favor by
murdering their son. >
The "Au Pair" program is a quasi-government sponsored "
cultural exchange" program which provides to "host" families in-home childcare
- "baby-sitting" - with great dollar and tax advantages for those upper income
American "host" families which qualify. The American proleteriat single
working mother would not qualify nor could afford the "Au Pair" luxury. It
is, in great part, a tax shelter in effect for advantaged income families
under the guise of "cultural exchange." Sincerely, Nan
sue
mpo...@peachnet.campus.mci.net wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:46:24 -0800, sue <incr...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >You know, we know, everybody knows that Louise is a baby killer,
> >regardless of how much she was paid.
> >Sue
>
> Hello,
> Actually, judging from the evidence that was presented in court, I do
> NOT
> know that Louise is a baby killer beyond a reasonable doubt. So,
> please do
> NOT include me in your everybody.
> .......Missy
> _________
Oh goody. One less moron to worry about.
Sue
GLC1173
Sue wrote:
>> Glas, your argument is ridiculous. Tons of working >>mothers use au
>>pairs, and not because it is "cheaper" child care. There are >>advantages
>>to au pairs, because they are contracted to stay with your >>family for an
>>extended period of time, UNLIKE a live in nanny, who can >>easily take off
>>and leave the family stranded
A wire-service article says that nannies cost *triple* what au pairs do in
New York City. Now don't you think that's the main "advantage" au pairs offer
their employer - cheap labor?
Nannies may walk off the job - but unsatisfactory au pair placements,
regardless of who gripes, often result in the parents needing to get a new au
pair.
>>You know, we know, everybody knows that Louise is a baby >>killer,
>>regardless of how much she was paid.
Let's not lose sight of that - and that Louise is a convicted felon - now
that she is a "celebrity" living better-off than 99% of Americans, including
the Eappens.
DICK1ANN2
So if the salary and conditions do not suit the au pair they can quit. They
are not indentured slaves. They do know what they are getting into . My
daughter has an au pair (who is wonderful by the way). Before she came to
this country, my daughter and son-in-law spoke to her and her parents at
length. They knew the conditions and work hours ahead of her arrival - there
was no surprise when she got here.
My main point here is if Louise was "unsatisfied" - no one kept her here in
shackles. So money and conditions should not be a consideration - they can
always leave when they want to.
grif...@ix.netcom.com
A minor point, but...didn't Louise "travel across the ocean to take [a]
job" with *another* family, not the Eappens? Do we know for sure that
the au pair agency set the salary, the hours, *and* the job
requirements, and that those things were specified in a contract between
Louise and the Eappens? Is the contract the same for all families who
hire the same au pair? I wonder too about those educational and
cultural opportunities to which an au pair is "contractually" entitled:
was Louise able to take advantage of them? Was she at least provided
transportation to classes?
Linda
Maggie8097 wrote:
> ***Apparently it was sufficient to entice Louise to travel across the ocean to
> take the job. The salary was set by the au pair agency and she knew about it
> before she left England. She interviewed with the family before she took the
> job, met the children and saw the accomodations. If there was anything
> unsatisfactory about the situation she could have declined the job offer.
>
> Maggie
Maggie8097
Nanleecro wrote:
The "Au Pair" program is a quasi-government sponsored "
cultural exchange" program which provides to "host" families in-home childcare
- "baby-sitting" - with great dollar and tax advantages for those upper income
American "host" families which qualify. The American proleteriat single
working mother would not qualify nor could afford the "Au Pair" luxury. It
is, in great part, a tax shelter in effect for advantaged income families
under the guise of "cultural exchange." Sincerely, Nan
***Well, I'm sure there are lots of things that single working mothers can't
afford that families with 2 working parents can, so I'm not sure what your
point is here unless it is to abolish capitalism, but what I'm really wondering
is what is this "tax shelter" stuff? The only tax advantage I can see to the
au pair program is that (I am assuming) federal and state taxes don't have to
be withheld from the au pair's pay, and FICA is not required to be paid--hardly
a tax "shelter."
Martha Sprowles
Maggie8097 wrote:
>
> Nanleecro wrote:
> The "Au Pair" program is a quasi-government sponsored "
> cultural exchange" program which provides to "host" families in-home childcare
> - "baby-sitting" - with great dollar and tax advantages for those upper income
> American "host" families which qualify. The American proleteriat single
> working mother would not qualify nor could afford the "Au Pair" luxury. It
> is, in great part, a tax shelter in effect for advantaged income families
> under the guise of "cultural exchange." Sincerely, Nan
>
> ***Well, I'm sure there are lots of things that single working mothers can't
> afford that families with 2 working parents can, so I'm not sure what your
> point is here unless it is to abolish capitalism, but what I'm really wondering
> is what is this "tax shelter" stuff? The only tax advantage I can see to the
> au pair program is that (I am assuming) federal and state taxes don't have to
> be withheld from the au pair's pay, and FICA is not required to be paid--hardly
> a tax "shelter."
>
I think, Maggie, that agencies like EF Au Pair operate as 501c(3)
not-for-profits, which means, I guess that payments to them might be
tax-deductible? I read a newspaper article about this very thing, that
there is suspicion in the IRS that they do not really qualify (501c(3)s
are generally educational institutions, and I'm not sure just how
educational an au pair's life generally is). But I imagine Nan is
right, that there is a way to make at least a portion of the cost
tax-deductible.
Martha R. Block
sue
Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> In article <347245D9...@megsinet.net>, sue
> <incr...@megsinet.net> wrote:
> >glas wrote:
> >
> >> sue wrote ...
> ...
> >> >
> >> >You know, we know, everybody knows that Louise is a baby killer,
> >> >regardless of how much she was paid.
> >> >Sue
> >> >
> >>
> >> Maybe "you" believe she is a baby killer, but I'm not convinced and
>
> >> there
> >> seem to be several other people that aren't either.
> >>
> >> glas
> >
> > I'm cool with that. I would never presume to be the only opinion
> out
> >there! I guess that is why there is that whole "debate" thing going
> >on...
>
> But the whole point was they you assumed just that.
>
> Osmo
Osmo, they are just going to have to get over it! (Your sentence
didn't make a lot of sense, but I think I get your point.)The only
reason ANY of us post to this ng is to get some good debate going. If
everybody agreed with everybody else, it would be sort of a dull read.
But, I could easily live without the Netiquette speeches, as well as any
assumptions about my intelligence. (A general statement, which does not
pertain to anything you've said.)
If someone makes a good point, I will definitely admit it. Until that
happens, rest assured that I am aware that many people here think she's
innocent. I just worded that post in an incorrect manner--too forceful.
Sue
Maggie8097
Martha wrote:
I think, Maggie, that agencies like EF Au Pair operate as 501c(3)
not-for-profits, which means, I guess that payments to them might be
tax-deductible? I read a newspaper article about this very thing, that
there is suspicion in the IRS that they do not really qualify (501c(3)s
are generally educational institutions, and I'm not sure just how
educational an au pair's life generally is). But I imagine Nan is
right, that there is a way to make at least a portion of the cost
tax-deductible.
***Payments to charitable institutions (501c(3)s) are tax-deductible only to
the extent that they exceed the value of the product or service provided.
Unless a case can be made that the families are paying *more* for their au
pairs than the au pairs are offering in terms of service, there is no
tax-deductibility (and, of course, no one could ever make that case).
I suspect that the objection to the 501c(3) status of au pair agencies (and I
wasn't aware that they were 501c(3)s) is that the agencies, themselves, as
not-for-profits are exempt from taxes. Believe me, no host family is legally
deducting any payments made to an au pair or her agency.
Osmo Ronkanen
NanLeeCro
>Martha wrote:
I think, Maggie, that agencies like EF Au Pair operate as 501c(3)
not-for-profits, which means, I guess that payments to them might be
tax-deductible? I read a newspaper article about this very thing, that there
is suspicion in the IRS that they do not really qualify (501c(3)s are generally
educational institutions, and I'm not sure just how educational an au pair's
life generally is). But I imagine Nan is right, that there is a way to make at
least a portion
of the cost tax-deductible. >
Maggie wrote:>***Payments to charitable institutions (501c(3)s) are
tax-deductible only to the extent that they exceed the value of the product or
service provided. Unless a case can be made that the families are paying
*more* for their au pairs than the au pairs
are offering in terms of service, there is no tax-deductibility (and,
of course, no one could ever make that case). I suspect that the objection to
the 501c(3) status of au pair agencies (and I
wasn't aware that they were 501c(3)s) is that the agencies, themselves, as
not-for-profits are exempt from taxes. Believe me,
no host family is legally deducting any payments made to an au pair
or her agency. >
Dear Maggie,
If you were not aware of the 501c(3) status of the GOVT sponsored "au pair
program", perhaps you are also unaware what tax loopholes which lie within the
conveniently convoluted 6-inch thick IRS tome.
"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects." Will Rogers
I now defer to Ms. Martha R. Block. Sincerely from Nan who believes "Politics
is too serious of a matter to leave to politicians."
>Maggie
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>From: maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097)
>Date: Thu, Nov 20, 1997 16:53 EST
>I suspect that the objection to the 501c(3) status of au pair agencies (and I
wasn't aware that they were 501c(3)s) is that the agencies, themselves, as
not-for-profits are exempt from taxes. Believe me, no host family is legally
deducting any payments made to an au pair or her agency. Maggie >
Dear Maggie,
You might be interested in the following information:
COPIED ARTICLE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact Sheet on USIA’s Au Pair Program
December 14, 1994
This article was provided by USIA and republished with permission.
1)The au pair program operates under the provisions of the Mutual Educational
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act) and the Eisenhower
Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990.
2)Program began in 1986 when the American Institute for Foreign Study (AIFS)
and the Experiment in International Living (EIL) applied to USIA to conduct an
au pair program under the Fulbright-Hays authority. USIA agreed to a two-year
pilot project.
3)December 1987: an interagency panel recommended that the program be
discontinued. October 1988: Congress instructs USIA to continue the program
and mandates a General Accounting Office (GAO) study of this and other
exchanges.
4)1989: USIA designates six additional organizations to participate in the
program, bringing the total to eight. See attached list .
5)February 1990: GAO report, "Inappropriate Uses of Educational and Cultural
Exchange Visas," states that au pair programs "are
not compatible with the original intent of the 1961 (Fulbright-Hays)
Act."
6)October 1990: Congress extends the au pair program under USIA and instructs
USIA to continue the program under the then-existing guidelines until such time
as it decides otherwise.
7)On October 7, 1994, pursuant to HR 5034 (State/USIA Technical Corrections
Bill), Congress authorized USIA to promulgate specific regulations governing
au pair programs.
8)USIA’s au pair program began with two designated
organizations and approximately 200 au pairs. Approximately
10,000 au pairs, working with eight designated organizations,
currently are in the United States. Some 40,000 have
participated in the program since its inception in 1986.
9)Annual cost to an average American host family is approximately $12,000. This
includes fees to designated organization, weekly
stipend, educational allowance, room/board.
Back to American Childcare Solutions
---------------end of copy----------------------------------------
Martha Sprowles
Tammy42096 wrote:
>
> >Dear Maggie,
> >
> >You do miss my point which is NOT to abolish capitalism - a strange
> >conclusion
> >to formulate. The Federally sponsored Au Pair program of which there are
> >approx. 5 or more agencies operating as NON-PROFIT organizations - they are
> >tax
> >exempt. Therefore, host families, who do not pay ANY employment withholding
> >taxes, can claim their COSTS as a tax deduction - a contribution to
> >educational, cultural exchange. The more incidious implications of this
> >federally sponsored "program" are obscured by the FEEL GOOD term "cultural
> >exchange". In other words, my take on this is: as a former single, div'cd
> >working mother, my taxes paid throughout my career's lifetime of WORKING,
> >and
> >STRUGGLING economically, in part contributed to supporting this federally
> >funded program which can ONLY benefit upper income families. Of course, I
> >COULD NOT deduct my childcare expenses. I resent this - I regard this as
> >UNDEMOCRATIC (reference Zoe Baird), UNREPRESENTATIVE and as deceptive
> >EXCLUSIVITY. Of course, how it relates to crime - well, needless to say, I
> >believe the government is slimey - repeat slimey and untrustworthy in its
> >various funding.. Freedom requires constant vigilence - never take any
> >government for granted. As a senior citizen, I speak from the history I
> >experienced. Sincerely from Nan
> >
> Nan,
>
> I am a little confused why you think the au pair program only benefits the
> upper income( whatever that is) families. Au pair programs are very
> reasonable. Cheap even. It is actually cheaper than daycare, it seems.
> 115.00 a week for TWO children? Doesn't sound like a luxery to me. So you
> provide room and board. How much can that add up for one person? Why do you
> think you have to be rich to benefit from this arrangement? And most people
> that are "rich" would much rather pay a trained professional that will be with
> their children for many years rather than an inexperienced teenager who will
> have to be replaced every year. I really don't see your point.
>
> Tammy
I'm not answering for Nan, but I can tell you as a person who has been
searching for in-home childcare for a couple of years--and I am home,
too, so this would be kind of a plum job--I was unwilling to continue my
correspondence with EF Au Pair after figuring out the cost of plane fare
and the weekly wage, on top of the requirements they had of me to
provide spare time, etc. It really sounded to me, and admittedly I did
not pursue the information, like a very expensive way to go. I was
quoted a weekly wage of $230 for a 45-hour week, with the understanding
that I would make sure the au pair got to attend cultural and
educational events on a regular basis. The room and board wasn't much
of a concern, but to hire an au pair required several thousand dollars
up front. And $230 was too steep for me.
I think, now that I know what I do from following this case, that the
whole au pair deal must be something that a sort of inner circle of
parents know about and use. I know that had I known that the actual
salary would be so low, I would've gone for it. I wonder if the salary
is negotiable? Or if it varies from region to region--with Boston being
so full of things to do, maybe the trade-off is the lower pay? I don't
know; but I do imagine that this business is something rich people,
particularly rich mothers, know more about than the rest of us slobs.
Martha
Tammy42096
Maggie8097
Maggie wrote:
>I suspect that the objection to the 501c(3) status of au pair agencies (and I
wasn't aware that they were 501c(3)s) is that the agencies, themselves, as
not-for-profits are exempt from taxes. Believe me, no host family is legally
deducting any payments made to an au pair or her agency. Maggie >
Nanleecro replied:
****I reiterate that payments by host families to au pairs and/or their
agencies are not tax deductible to the host families.
Maggie8097
Nanleecro wrote:
You do miss my point which is NOT to abolish capitalism - a strange conclusion
to formulate. The Federally sponsored Au Pair program of which there are
approx. 5 or more agencies operating as NON-PROFIT organizations - they are tax
exempt. Therefore, host families, who do not pay ANY employment withholding
taxes, can claim their COSTS as a tax deduction - a contribution to
educational, cultural exchange.
***No, no, no, no, no. Host families are not entitled to any deduction unless
their "gift" exceeds the value of services received. No one is claiming it
does. Host families cannot deduct payments to au pairs or their agencies.
However, the agencies don't pay taxes on their income.
Maggie8097
Martha wrote:
I'm not answering for Nan, but I can tell you as a person who has been
searching for in-home childcare for a couple of years--and I am home,
too, so this would be kind of a plum job--I was unwilling to continue my
correspondence with EF Au Pair after figuring out the cost of plane fare
and the weekly wage, on top of the requirements they had of me to
provide spare time, etc. It really sounded to me, and admittedly I did
not pursue the information, like a very expensive way to go. I was
quoted a weekly wage of $230 for a 45-hour week, with the understanding
that I would make sure the au pair got to attend cultural and
educational events on a regular basis. The room and board wasn't much
of a concern, but to hire an au pair required several thousand dollars
up front. And $230 was too steep for me.
I think, now that I know what I do from following this case, that the
whole au pair deal must be something that a sort of inner circle of
parents know about and use. I know that had I known that the actual
salary would be so low, I would've gone for it. I wonder if the salary
is negotiable? Or if it varies from region to region--with Boston being
so full of things to do, maybe the trade-off is the lower pay? I don't
know; but I do imagine that this business is something rich people,
particularly rich mothers, know more about than the rest of us slobs.
***Martha, you have either gotten some bad information or you are mistaken.
The weekly stipend for foreign au pairs in this country is set by law (USIA).
It was $128.25 until very recently when it went up to around $140. The wage
does not vary by region and it is not negotiable. The program fee is in excess
of $4,000 and includes most, if not all of the plane fare.
Gimarie330
>> ***Martha, you have either gotten some bad information or you are mistaken.
>
>Well, it wouldn't be the first time for either eventuality <g>. I no
>longer have the material to check, but I could swear what I posted was
>what I was quoted. Maybe it wasn't the official au pair program.
>
>Martha
>
>> The weekly stipend for foreign au pairs in this country is set by law
>(USIA).
>> It was $128.25 until very recently when it went up to around $140. The
>wage
>> does not vary by region and it is not negotiable. The program fee is in
>excess
>> of $4,000 and includes most, if not all of the plane fare.
Maybe Martha's $230.00 quote was and is correct. Is it not possible that the
agency takes a cut out of those weekly salaries.???
grif...@ix.netcom.com
Maggie8097 wrote:
> And what happpened to Cliff?
>
> Maggie
Hi, Maggie,
<G!> Cliff's still here, but he didn't want anyone to think these posts
were from *him*. When we got the software upgrade, we deleted him...uh,
"omitted his name".
Linda
Martha Sprowles
Maggie8097 wrote:
>
> Martha wrote:
> I'm not answering for Nan, but I can tell you as a person who has been
> searching for in-home childcare for a couple of years--and I am home,
> too, so this would be kind of a plum job--I was unwilling to continue my
> correspondence with EF Au Pair after figuring out the cost of plane fare
> and the weekly wage, on top of the requirements they had of me to
> provide spare time, etc. It really sounded to me, and admittedly I did
> not pursue the information, like a very expensive way to go. I was
> quoted a weekly wage of $230 for a 45-hour week, with the understanding
> that I would make sure the au pair got to attend cultural and
> educational events on a regular basis. The room and board wasn't much
> of a concern, but to hire an au pair required several thousand dollars
> up front. And $230 was too steep for me.
>
> I think, now that I know what I do from following this case, that the
> whole au pair deal must be something that a sort of inner circle of
> parents know about and use. I know that had I known that the actual
> salary would be so low, I would've gone for it. I wonder if the salary
> is negotiable? Or if it varies from region to region--with Boston being
> so full of things to do, maybe the trade-off is the lower pay? I don't
> know; but I do imagine that this business is something rich people,
> particularly rich mothers, know more about than the rest of us slobs.
>
NanLeeCro
If you don't perceive the conflict of interest involved in this "au pair"
program, the deceptive aspect of the program, the egregious exclusivity of the
program, and if you are not offended by
very concept of this govt. supported program which is neither democratic nor
representative in spirit, and benefits but a few advantaged, and in no way
alleviates the childcare burden for the majority of productive citizens WHO in
part by virtue of their taxes support the program's funding. I think it is
OUTRAGEOUS.
I resent it deeply - IN PRINCIPLE for all mid to lower income (culturally
deprived?) working parents and as an individual - a former single working
(div) mother - working like FUCKING HELL to survive on NET PAY after taxes to
support (in whatever miniscule part) an au pair program for a few upper income
families under the auspices of "cultural exchange" (rant on) AND all the other
godawful wantonly wasteful govt. funded programs, et al. operating deliberately
at high deficit levels to justify raising taxes. I refer you to the Inspector
General's Reports and (ignored by Congress) recommendations for efficiency,
erradicating fraud and abuse, and dishonesty inherent among funded agencies and
other bureaucratic entities. No frickin business is so inefficiently run as
this government and it is not held accountable. Who cares?
I guess it is a good thing that I am a senior citizen too infirmed by time to
lead a revolution. Nothing like a metaphoric guillotine to express a false
politician's HOT AIR! Christ, now there will be Feds behind every bush!
Disclaimer: I do not belong to ANY political party or association, or
extremist anarchist group. Just one little old angry lady because
enlightenment brings no peace and joy. I can still stand on my principles,
Maggie, what about yours?
I just happen to believe the government is answerable to me.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>From: maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097)
>Date: Sat, Nov 22, 1997 08:19 EST
For your further edification:
Copied article:
-------------------------------------------------
Host Family Qualifications and Responsibilities
In the majority of cases, both parents work and many have very small children
or infants. The Au Pair will be a contributing member of the household
experiencing the "real" America, and that TV does not reflect the realities for
the vast majority of the population!
*LIKE BOTH PARENTS WORKING - 'REAL' AMERICA!*
To take part in the Au Pair program, families must satisfy the local
coordinator, through documentation and during an in-home interview, that they
are suitable for participation. Each accepted family must agree to adhere to
the Host Family Agreement, which:
Requires that a private room be provided for the Au Pair.
Specifies that the host family will include the Au Pair where possible in
family meals, outings, holidays, and other events.
Limits the contribution of the Au Pair to the host family to 45 hours of child
care per week (no more than 10 hours a day) and not more than five and one half
days per week.
Requires the host family to give the Au Pair at least $128 per week on a
mutually agreed upon day.
Provides for the Au Pair one and one half days off each week, including a full
Saturday or Sunday, with the opportunity to attend religious services if
desired.
Provides for the Au Pair one complete weekend off each month (from Friday
evening to Monday morning.)
Requires the host family to provide tuition fees of up to $500 per year.
Requires the host family to give the Au Pair, in addition to weekly time off, a
minimum of two weeks paid vacation time during the exchange.
Requires families to participate in one "family day conference" per year
sponsored by Au Pair USA/ InterExchange.
Requires that host parents be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
Requires that host parents speak fluent English.
Requires that at least one parent, or other responsible adult remain at home
with the Au Pair during her first 3 days with the family.
--------------end of copy article---------------------
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>From: maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097)
>Date: Sat, Nov 22, 1997 08:19 EST
Martha wrote:
> I was quoted a weekly wage of $230 for a 45-hour week, with the understanding
that I would make sure the au pair got to attend cultural and educational
events on a regular basis. The room and board wasn't much of a concern, but to
hire an au pair required several thousand dollars up front. And $230 was too
steep for me.
I think, now that I know what I do from following this case, that the
whole au pair deal must be something that a sort of inner circle of
parents know about and use. I know that had I known that the actual salary
would be so low, I would've gone for it. I wonder if the salary is negotiable?
Or if it varies from region to region--with Boston being so full of things to
do, maybe the trade-off is the lower pay? I don't know; but I do imagine that
this business is something rich people, particularly rich mothers, know more
about than the rest of us slobs. >
Maggie wrote:
>***Martha, you have either gotten some bad information or you are mistaken.
The weekly stipend for foreign au pairs in this country is set by law (USIA).
It was $128.25 until very recently when it went up to around $140. The wage
does not vary by region and it is not negotiable. The program fee is in excess
of $4,000 and includes most, if not all of the plane fare. >
The total yearly expense for the host family for the "au pair" program is
approx. $12,000. The "salary" paid by the host family directly to the au pair
is approximately a yearly total of $6,420.
The agency is non-profit, tax exempt, funded by the U.S. taxpayer.
Like Martha, I am in the "slob" class as well as was in the "taken for a ride"
class. Now, EVERYTHING in "*Denmark smells rotten.
*Paraphrased: Hamlet said it first, I believe.
Maggie, you will have to prove it me there are no TAX loopholes for Host
Families to defray the "cultural program" expense.
This very program is GROSSLY misrepresented to the public.
Linda O'Brien
A few years ago I tried desperately to hire an au pair. Was not able to.
I think you may need to pull some strings, have some influence to even
get one.
Maggie8097
Maggie wrote:
>> The weekly stipend for foreign au pairs in this country is set by law
>(USIA).
>> It was $128.25 until very recently when it went up to around $140. The
>wage
>> does not vary by region and it is not negotiable. The program fee is in
>excess
>> of $4,000 and includes most, if not all of the plane fare.
Ginmarie replied:
Maybe Martha's $230.00 quote was and is correct. Is it not possible that the
agency takes a cut out of those weekly salaries.???
***Anything is possible, of course, but if the agency was taking a cut of the
weekly salaries they would be in violation of the law. I can't imagine
everyone this agency talking to being ignorant of the law, so I would bet
they'd be reported pretty quickly.
Maggie8097
Nanleecro wrote:
I can still stand on my principles,
Maggie, what about yours?
I just happen to believe the government is answerable to me.
***There are plenty of government programs/IRS regulations that benefit the
rich disproportionately. In this context the au pair program, which allows
certain families to have a foreign teenager care for their child while they are
working, seems pretty minor. I just can't get too concerned about the huge
advantages you seem to think exist for host families, which to my mind are
practically meaningless. Let's face it, most people don't want inexperienced
teenagers living with them and caring for their children, even if it does save
them withholding tax and FICA.
Maggie8097
Nanleecro wrote:
Maggie, you will have to prove it me there are no TAX loopholes for Host
Families to defray the "cultural program" expense.
This very program is GROSSLY misrepresented to the public.
***Dammit, Nan. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.
You have asserted that host families can deduct payments to au pairs and their
agencies. You seem to have researched au pair agencies rather exhaustively and
you have apparently come up with nothing to support this crazy idea of yours.
You say payments to au pairs are deductible--cite your source or quit wagging
your tongue about something you obviously know nothing about.
Martha Sprowles
Maggie8097 wrote:
>
> Nanleecro wrote:
> I can still stand on my principles,
> Maggie, what about yours?
> I just happen to believe the government is answerable to me.
>
> ***There are plenty of government programs/IRS regulations that benefit the
> rich disproportionately. In this context the au pair program, which allows
> certain families to have a foreign teenager care for their child while they are
> working, seems pretty minor. I just can't get too concerned about the huge
> advantages you seem to think exist for host families, which to my mind are
> practically meaningless. Let's face it, most people don't want inexperienced
> teenagers living with them and caring for their children, even if it does save
> them withholding tax and FICA.
>
Not answering for Nan, but what I find most offensive (Nan has sent me
material about the au pair program) is the deception. This is presented
by our government, *with a straight face,* as a cultural exchange
program to provide "affordable" child care. What a load.
First off, the $230 figure I mentioned the other day was not a
hallucination. The governmental materials Nan sent me quote $235/week.
Plus room and board, educational opportunities, and cultural enrichment.
Now. How does this possibly benefit any but the wealthiest families in
this country? What au pair would want to spend a year in Forgotten
Falls, Alabama, in a family with a $60,000 income?
This is a program for the rich. It isn't even good for children to have
revolving-door in-home care. The reasons it's so offensive to me are:
1. It uses tax money to help people who could afford to do this without
tax support--after all, Zoe Baird was able to get TWO Panamanians for
only $10,000/year. (sarcasm alert)
2. Child care costs and availability are probably the biggest problem
facing middle and lower income families in the US, and it's obscene that
we have chosen to put resources in this ridiculous rich-people-only
racket.
3. Of course many other program favor the rich. Most of the tax laws
do. But every program is an added burden to the rest of us. The
government requires a certain amount of money to operate. The tax
breaks it gives to rich people reduces the amount of money available.
The money has to come from somewhere, and it does--the pockets of the
rest of us.
Martha
JBrown6000
Nanleecro wrote:
I can still stand on my principles,
Maggie, what about yours?
I just happen to believe the government is answerable to me.
Maggie says:
>>***There are plenty of government programs/IRS regulations that benefit the
rich disproportionately. In this context the au pair program, which allows
certain families to have a foreign teenager care for their child while they are
working, seems pretty minor. I just can't get too concerned about the huge
advantages you seem to think exist for host families, which to my mind are
practically meaningless. Let's face it, most people don't want inexperienced
teenagers living with them and caring for their children, even if it does save
them withholding tax and FICA.
**Well, Maggie, if so few wanted it, the the program would be defunct, wouldn't
it?
jb
Maggie8097
Martha wrote:
Not answering for Nan, but what I find most offensive (Nan has sent me
material about the au pair program) is the deception. This is presented
by our government, *with a straight face,* as a cultural exchange
program to provide "affordable" child care. What a load.
***Actually, from examining their home pages, what struck me is that in the
U.S. the au pair programs seem to be presented as childcare alternatives, while
in the foreign countries that supply the girls, they are marketed as cultural
exchange.
Martha wrote:
First off, the $230 figure I mentioned the other day was not a
hallucination. The governmental materials Nan sent me quote $235/week.
Plus room and board, educational opportunities, and cultural enrichment.
***I have no idea what Nan sent you, but the $230 figure, if you are saying it
is a weekly wage to the au pair, is bogus. What it may represent is the
average weekly cost of an au pair, once placement fee and educational stipend
are included (in fact it probably does--$130 per week for 52 weeks, $4,500 for
placement, plus $500 for education comes out to $226 per week). But I can
absolutely assure you that the weekly salary, paid directly to the au pair, is
set by law and until very recently was $128.25. It has since risen to around
$140.
Martha said:
Now. How does this possibly benefit any but the wealthiest families in
this country? What au pair would want to spend a year in Forgotten
Falls, Alabama, in a family with a $60,000 income?
**Well, I doubt most au pairs would be interested in Forgotten Falls, even if
their host family made $500,000 a year. I think I might be more inclined to
agree with you if you said that the program benefits couples in large cities,
which I suspect attract the most au pairs. I have known a number of families
that have had au pairs, with results from fabulous to disasterous. Not one of
them was rich--they were all young couples in two-income families. In the best
of cases, the family reaped the benefits of exposure to a different culture.
In the worst, the children were ignored by young girls more interested in late
nights than babysitting. Believe me, the rich can get better childcare by
paying more.
Martha wrote:
This is a program for the rich. It isn't even good for children to have
revolving-door in-home care. The reasons it's so offensive to me are:
1. It uses tax money to help people who could afford to do this without
tax support--after all, Zoe Baird was able to get TWO Panamanians for
only $10,000/year. (sarcasm alert)
***The only tax advantage to people who employ an au pair is that they don't
have to withhold taxes and FICA, or pay FICA. Zoe Baird managed to get this
particular tax advantage without even hiring an au pair.
Martha wrote:
2. Child care costs and availability are probably the biggest problem
facing middle and lower income families in the US, and it's obscene that
we have chosen to put resources in this ridiculous rich-people-only
racket.
***This is silly. The rich can and do pay for better quality childcare than is
offered by au pairs. It is middle income families in large cities who benefit
the most from the au pair program.
Martha wrote:
3. Of course many other program favor the rich. Most of the tax laws
do. But every program is an added burden to the rest of us. The
government requires a certain amount of money to operate. The tax
breaks it gives to rich people reduces the amount of money available.
The money has to come from somewhere, and it does--the pockets of the
rest of us.
***I agree 100%.
grif...@ix.netcom.com
I don't know anything about Au Pairs, but there is, I think, a
correlation somewhere in *my* story. When we lived in the Philippines
from 1971-1972, we paid a housegirl (Pacita) 100 pesos/month to clean
house and babysit our son (6-18 mos. old). 100 pesos equalled $17.00.
I was a stay-at-home mom, and we didn't have a lot of places to go; but,
if we wanted to go out at night, Pacita would come back to town and
babysit at no extra charge. When our tour was over, she offered to work
for us in the States, doing the same things, for airfare plus $100/mo.
We really wanted to bring her over, but we couldn't afford it then. Two
or three years later, we tried to bring her over, but the govt. said we
couldn't. They said they had "already filled their quota of Filipinos,"
since that was the time when they were bringing over a lot of Filipina
nurses due to a nursing shortage here.
BTW, as I remember it, Pacita set the terms of the "contract". We heard
that we could get a housegirl, Pacita was recommended, and we said,
"What will you do and for how much?" She was REALLY a "member of the
family," and we all hated to part company. Once when a Filipino offered
to sharpen my knives and scissors for 50 centavos each, Pacita told him
that that was exorbitant, and that he should sharpen ALL the knives and
scissors for 50 tavs. (50 tavs = 8 1/2 cents) He did. Pacita was a
good friend to us the entire time, and she was great with our baby.
Linda
Martha Sprowles wrote:
> Not answering for Nan, but what I find most offensive (Nan has sent me
> material about the au pair program) is the deception. This is presented
> by our government, *with a straight face,* as a cultural exchange
> program to provide "affordable" child care. What a load.
>
> First off, the $230 figure I mentioned the other day was not a
> hallucination. The governmental materials Nan sent me quote $235/week.
> Plus room and board, educational opportunities, and cultural enrichment.
> Now. How does this possibly benefit any but the wealthiest families in
> this country? What au pair would want to spend a year in Forgotten
> Falls, Alabama, in a family with a $60,000 income?
>
> This is a program for the rich. It isn't even good for children to have
> revolving-door in-home care. The reasons it's so offensive to me are:
>
> 1. It uses tax money to help people who could afford to do this without
> tax support--after all, Zoe Baird was able to get TWO Panamanians for
> only $10,000/year. (sarcasm alert)
>
> 2. Child care costs and availability are probably the biggest problem
> facing middle and lower income families in the US, and it's obscene that
> we have chosen to put resources in this ridiculous rich-people-only
> racket.
>
> 3. Of course many other program favor the rich. Most of the tax laws
> do. But every program is an added burden to the rest of us. The
> government requires a certain amount of money to operate. The tax
> breaks it gives to rich people reduces the amount of money available.
> The money has to come from somewhere, and it does--the pockets of the
> rest of us.
>
> Martha
grif...@ix.netcom.com
Maggie8097 wrote:
> Ginmarie replied:
> Maybe Martha's $230.00 quote was and is correct. Is it not possible that the
> agency takes a cut out of those weekly salaries.???
>
> ***Anything is possible, of course, but if the agency was taking a cut of the
> weekly salaries they would be in violation of the law. I can't imagine
> everyone this agency talking to being ignorant of the law, so I would bet
> they'd be reported pretty quickly.
>
> Maggie
If the agency isn't supposed to take a "cut", how do they earn *their*
money? IOW, who pays the agencies: the families or the au pairs?
Linda
NanLeeCro
>Nanleecro wrote:
>Maggie, you will have to prove it me there are no TAX loopholes for Host
Families to defray the "cultural program" expense.
This very program is GROSSLY misrepresented to the public. >
>***Dammit, Nan. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. >
HeckHell, Maggie, every comment I made regarding this issue, you strongly
negated - and Martha's as well. .Then when I provided documentation to support
my comments, you ASSUMED the knowledge to cover your prior negation of it. So,
in a round about way, I disproved a "negative" - yours.
>You have asserted that host families can deduct payments to au pairs and their
agencies. You seem to have researched au pair agencies rather exhaustively and
you have apparently come up with nothing to support this crazy idea of yours.
You say payments to au pairs are deductible--cite your source or quit wagging
your tongue about something you obviously know nothing about. >
Hummm, Maggie, let remind you that you negated my "crazy idea" disclosing the
TRUE nature of the fed. sponsored AP program. I researched the subject BEFORE
I made any comment. Without ANY knowledge of the program, you ASSERTED your
uninformed opinion which is a CRAZY impetuosity for a responsible inquiring
person such as yourself. I have not said PAYMENTS to au pairs are deductible.
I proposed that the "expenses" for the AP program are probably tax deductible
under some "contribution to education/culture" via some obscure umbrella/loop
hole that undoubtedly is the underlying purpose/advantage of being a host
family. This is not an unreasonable idea considering the manipulations and
machinations of CONGRESS and special interest funding, and typical of their
traditional slight of hand practices. I don't understand why you need to
defend the obvious mispresentation of this "program". There are intrinic
values and principles involved - more than just the LITTLE program is worth.
Sincerely from Nan.
NanLeeCro
>Ginmarie replied:
Maybe Martha's $230.00 quote was and is correct. Is it not possible that the
agency takes a cut out of those weekly salaries.???
Dear GiniMarie,
The Agencies are non-profit - they are funded by the public revenue through the
Federal funding process. Taxpayers support the agencies - their salaries,
bonuses & benefits - *as govt. employees they do not pay into our Soc. Sec.
System because Govt. employees have their own exclusive and protected benefits
trust*, and operating costs - foreign offices, advertising, recruitment,
supplies, etc. all to the benefit of approx. 40,000 upper income familes.
Sinecure and nepotism, anyone? Sincerely, Nan
"Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies....." Mann
Maggie8097
Maggie says:
>>***There are plenty of government programs/IRS regulations that benefit the
rich disproportionately. In this context the au pair program, which allows
certain families to have a foreign teenager care for their child while they are
working, seems pretty minor. I just can't get too concerned about the huge
advantages you seem to think exist for host families, which to my mind are
practically meaningless. Let's face it, most people don't want inexperienced
teenagers living with them and caring for their children, even if it does save
them withholding tax and FICA.
jb relied:
**Well, Maggie, if so few wanted it, the the program would be defunct, wouldn't
it?
***Right. And this strange leap of logic obviously explains why there is no
such thing as a Lutheran Church, saxaphone teachers, battery stores and
black-bordered stationery. Clearly unless something is desired by the majority
of people in this country it simply fails to exist. This is your point, isn't
it, jb?
Tammy42096
>Maggie, what about yours?
>I just happen to believe the government is answerable to me.
Nan,
How can you think the au pair program is only for the rich? I can't believe so
many people think 140.00 a week is so much for child care. You can't get child
care for 2 kids for LESS than this. It is very reasonable. I don't think it is
the BEST option for working parents, but I certainly don't think it is
something only the "rich" can afford. Unless you have someone providing you
child care for free, if you work you are going to have to pay this much for 2
kids. And to get a tax deduction for it is all the more better. Why do you
resent the program so much? It really sounds like a good thing. I think it
would be better used for mothers who stay at home and need extra help, but it
is an option even for single divorced working mothers. I assume you had to pay
SOMEONE to care for your children while working. Wouldn't it have been a lot
more convenient to have someone in home and have it tax deductible? Probably
wouldn't have costed you anymore than you paid for your childcare.
Tammy
Maggie8097
Nan wrote:
HeckHell, Maggie, every comment I made regarding this issue, you strongly
negated - and Martha's as well. .Then when I provided documentation to support
my comments, you ASSUMED the knowledge to cover your prior negation of it. So,
in a round about way, I disproved a "negative" - yours.
***You have provided no documentation for your assertion that the au pair
program is a "tax shelter." I stated that the only tax advantages for host
families is that they don't have to withhold taxes and pay FICA. If you
believe you have provided documentation for other tax advantages, please
restate it here.
Maggie wrote:
>You have asserted that host families can deduct payments to au pairs and their
agencies. You seem to have researched au pair agencies rather exhaustively and
you have apparently come up with nothing to support this crazy idea of yours.
You say payments to au pairs are deductible--cite your source or quit wagging
your tongue about something you obviously know nothing about. >
Nan wrote:
Hummm, Maggie, let remind you that you negated my "crazy idea" disclosing the
TRUE nature of the fed. sponsored AP program. I researched the subject BEFORE
I made any comment. Without ANY knowledge of the program, you ASSERTED your
uninformed opinion which is a CRAZY impetuosity for a responsible inquiring
person such as yourself.
***What in hell does that mean? And BTW, I have a great deal of knowledge
about the au pair program, having investigated it for myself four years ago.
Nan wrote:
I have not said PAYMENTS to au pairs are deductible.
I proposed that the "expenses" for the AP program are probably tax deductible
under some "contribution to education/culture" via some obscure umbrella/loop
hole that undoubtedly is the underlying purpose/advantage of being a host
family. This is not an unreasonable idea considering the manipulations and
machinations of CONGRESS and special interest funding, and typical of their
traditional slight of hand practices. I don't understand why you need to
defend the obvious mispresentation of this "program". There are intrinic
values and principles involved - more than just the LITTLE program is worth.
***It seems rather irresponsible to assert something like this with absolutely
no support. Put up or shut up.
NanLeeCro
Maggie8097
Nan wrote:
The Agencies are non-profit - they are funded by the public revenue through the
Federal funding process. Taxpayers support the agencies - their salaries,
bonuses & benefits - *as govt. employees they do not pay into our Soc. Sec.
System because Govt. employees have their own exclusive and protected benefits
trust*, and operating costs - foreign offices, advertising, recruitment,
supplies, etc. all to the benefit of approx. 40,000 upper income familes.
Sinecure and nepotism, anyone? Sincerely, Nan
***Oh, Nan, no wonder you are so opposed to the au pair system. You are
totally ignorant of how it really works. Employees of au pair agencies are NOT
government employees. The agencies are not funded through the federal funding
process. The employees are employees of the agency and pay into our tax system
like everyone else in the world (note: the au pairs, themselves pay no taxes
to the U.S.)--same as the employees of a church or school or any other
tax-exempt institution. The only way in which taxpayers "support" the agency
is that we allow it to operate tax-free--i.e., it doesn't pay taxes on its
income.
Maggie8097
Ginmarie replied:
> Maybe Martha's $230.00 quote was and is correct. Is it not possible that the
> agency takes a cut out of those weekly salaries.???
>
> ***Anything is possible, of course, but if the agency was taking a cut of the
> weekly salaries they would be in violation of the law. I can't imagine
> everyone this agency talking to being ignorant of the law, so I would bet
> they'd be reported pretty quickly.
>
Linda asked:
If the agency isn't supposed to take a "cut", how do they earn *their*
money? IOW, who pays the agencies: the families or the au pairs?
**The au pairs pay nothing. The host families pay an approximately $4,500
"program fee" to the agency (including the host family's application fee).
This covers paperwork and administrative costs for the au pair and round-trip
airfare. The agencies themselves are non-profit institutions, and as such,
just need to break even to remain in operation.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Fri, Nov 21, 1997 13:51 EST
Dear Tammy, please read my (starting 11-20-97) postings under this topic. My
posts clearlly explain my objections.
Tammy asks: >I can't believe so many people think 140.00 a week is so much for
child care. You can't get child care for 2 kids for LESS than this. It is
very reasonable. I don't think it is the BEST option for working parents, but
I certainly don't think it is
something only the "rich" can afford. Unless you have someone providing you
child care for free, if you work you are going to have to pay this much for 2
kids. And to get a tax deduction for it is all the more better. Why do you
resent the program so much? >
Dear Tammy,
I RESENT this phoney program ON PRINCIPLE because the average working family
absolutely CANNOT qualify for this program. This exclusive program is funded by
the Govt. - by taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT
which means ALL of their operating expenses are paid by the GOVT. - the
taxpayers. Only approx. 40,000 upper income families benefit from the
program. This program is NOT designed to solve any childcare problems for the
great number of working American families in the mid to lower income brackets
who pay taxes, and in part, are paying the program's agencies for: salaries,
bonuses, benefits, operating costs such travel, recruitment, meetings,
supplies, advertising, etc. In other words, all of the inflated expenses of
running a (bureaucratic) service business which the TAXPAYERS support for the
benefit of a very few qualified "host familes" in the upper income bracket.
If you cannot understand the implications of how UNDEMOCRATIC and
unconstitutional this program is, please let me know - because, Tammy, it is
REALLY important for you to understand it. Sincerely from Nan
>>Dear Maggie,
You do miss my point which is NOT to abolish capitalism - a strange conclusion
to formulate. The Federally sponsored Au Pair program of which there are
approx. 5 or more agencies operating as NON-PROFIT organizations - they are tax
exempt.
Therefore, host families, who do not pay ANY employment withholding taxes, can
claim their COSTS as a tax deduction - a contribution to educational, cultural
exchange. The more insidious implications of this federally sponsored
"program" are obscured
by the FEEL GOOD term "cultural exchange". In other words, my take on this
is: as a former single, div'cd working mother, my taxes paid throughout my
career's lifetime of WORKING,
and STRUGGLING economically, in part contributed to
supporting this federally funded program which can ONLY
benefit upper income families. Of course, I COULD NOT deduct my childcare
expenses. I resent this - I regard this as UNDEMOCRATIC (reference Zoe Baird),
REPRESENTATIVE and as deceptive EXCLUSIVITY. Of course, how it relates to
crime - well, needless to say, I believe the government is slimey - repeat
slimey and untrustworthy in its various funding.. Freedom requires constant
vigilence - never take any government for granted. As a senior citizen, I
speak from the history I experienced. Sincerely from Nan >
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Mon, Nov 24, 1997 10:46 EST>
>Nan wrote:
I have not said PAYMENTS to au pairs are deductible.
I proposed that the "expenses" for the AP program are probably tax deductible
under some "contribution to education/culture" via some obscure umbrella/loop
hole that undoubtedly is the underlying purpose/advantage of being a host
family.
This is not an unreasonable idea considering the manipulations and
machinations of CONGRESS and special interest funding, and typical of their
traditional slight of hand practices. I don't understand why you need to
defend the obvious mispresentation of this "program". There are intrinic
values and principles involved - more than just the LITTLE program is worth.
>***It seems rather irresponsible to assert something like this with
absolutely no support. Put up or shut up. Maggie >
Maggie, it would be seriously irresponsible for me NOT to assert as I do the
MISREPRESENTATION of this AU PAIR program based on information I researched.
If you had prior information about the TRUE status of the Fed. funded Au Pair
program, why did you argue SO dismissively against my comments which were based
factual information? In one of your posts to Martha, IF you want to pursue the
matter, YOU ADMITTED to her NOT having prior knowledge of the tax exempt status
of the program.
To substantiate my assertions re: in general the "character" of Congress and
its funding and spending processes of the NATION'S revenue/wealth as described
in my above statement, I refer you the Inspector General's reports and
recommendations all of which are too lengthy and too many to include here, but
are available for all TRUTH seekers on the NET. I ADVISE EVERYONE to inform
themselves by seeking out direct sources and not to take EITHER YOU or ME at
our respective words. The IG's reports are irreproachable documentation. And,
you shall not challenge my "putting up or shutting up" (a loser's gambit) -
you couldn't even if I perceived an integrity in your purpose. Your gauntlet
is of frail dissembling fabric. You seem to prefer to overrule and overbear
the TRUTH in this matter.
Sincerely from Nan
>Dear Tammy,
I RESENT this phoney program because the average working family absolutely
CANNOT qualify for this program. This exclusive program is funded by the Govt.
- by taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT which means
ALL of their expenses are paid by the GOVT. - the taxpayers. Only approx.
40,000 upper income families benefit from the program. This program is NOT
designed to solve any childcare problems for the great number of working
American families in the mid to lower income brackets who pay taxes, and in
part, are paying the program's agencies for: salaries, bonuses, benefits,
operating costs such travel, recruitment, meetings, supplies, advertising, etc.
In other words, all of the inflated expenses of running a service business
Terry Hallinan
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>Dear Tammy, please read my (starting 11-20-97) postings under this topic. My
>posts clearlly explain my objections.
>Tammy asks: >I can't believe so many people think 140.00 a week is so much for
>child care. You can't get child care for 2 kids for LESS than this. It is
>very reasonable. I don't think it is the BEST option for working parents, but
>I certainly don't think it is
> something only the "rich" can afford. Unless you have someone providing you
>child care for free, if you work you are going to have to pay this much for 2
>kids. And to get a tax deduction for it is all the more better. Why do you
>resent the program so much? >
>Dear Tammy,
>I RESENT this phoney program ON PRINCIPLE because the average working family
>absolutely CANNOT qualify for this program. This exclusive program is funded by
>the Govt. - by taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT
>which means ALL of their operating expenses are paid by the GOVT. - the
>taxpayers. Only approx. 40,000 upper income families benefit from the
>program. This program is NOT designed to solve any childcare problems for the
>great number of working American families in the mid to lower income brackets
>who pay taxes, and in part, are paying the program's agencies for: salaries,
>bonuses, benefits, operating costs such travel, recruitment, meetings,
>supplies, advertising, etc.
Seems pretty clear to me, Nan.
Our government which valiantly fights against any funding for decent
child care for most working parents, it provides a program to recruit
hired live-in servants for the wealthy. The girls are recruited by
phony ads for the glamour and glitter of living in America forgetting
about the messy business of changing diapers and doing dishes.
What is not to understand?
Or maybe Tammy thinks lots of factory workers, waitresses and clerical
workers have live-in servants.
Best, Terry
"Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>From: maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097)
>Date: Mon, Nov 24, 1997 10:46 EST
Earlier Quote from Maggie:
>I suspect that the objection to the 501c(3) status of au pair agencies
****
*** (and I wasn't aware that they were 501c(3)s)***
****
is that the agencies, themselves, as not-for-profits are exempt from taxes.
Believe me, no host family is legally deducting any payments made to an au pair
or her agency.>
Nan wrote:
The Agencies are non-profit - they are funded by the public revenue through the
Federal funding process. Taxpayers support the agencies - their salaries,
bonuses & benefits - *as govt. employees they do not pay into our Soc. Sec.
System because Govt. employees have their own exclusive and protected benefits
trust*, and operating costs - foreign offices, advertising, recruitment,
supplies, etc. all to the benefit of approx. 40,000 upper income familes.
Sinecure and nepotism, anyone? Sincerely, Nan
>***Oh, Nan, no wonder you are so opposed to the au pair system. You are
totally ignorant of how it really works.>
No, Maggie, Iam NOT ignorant as to how it works - really works. The public is
always made ignornant by misrepresentation and idsinformation. This issue
REALLY affects the public's interest and how important IS their right to know.
> Employees of au pair agencies are NOT government employees. The agencies are
not funded through the federal funding process.>
The Au Pair program is government funded and is tax-exempt and is non-profit.
All of which you DENIED before Martha confirmed it. You insist on trying to
sweep the truth under a carpet of your self-appointed authorative denials of
the truth and the facts in the matter.
> The employees are employees of the agency and pay into our tax system like
everyone else in the world...>
The employees of the agency are GOVT employees who DO NOT pay into the SOC SEC
benefits trust. ALL of the agencies' sponsored by the GOVT have operating
expenses, including salaries, which are paid by GOVT funding - er, taxpayers in
the long run. .
> The only way in which taxpayers "support" the agency is that we allow it to
operate tax-free--i.e., it doesn't pay taxes on its income. >
Maggie, if the fricking agency is non-profit and it is FUNDED, financially
SUPPORTED by the GOVT, it is the GOVT using the people's revenue to pay the
*operating expenses* of these BUREAUCRATIC agencies.
Maggie, why do persist in barraging the TRUTH in this issue?
Maggie8097
Nan wrote:
This exclusive program is funded by the Govt. - by
taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT which means ALL of
**You are simply insane.
Maggie8097
Nan wrote:
I RESENT this phoney program ON PRINCIPLE because the average working family
the Govt. - by taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT
taxpayers. Only approx. 40,000 upper income families benefit from the
program. This program is NOT designed to solve any childcare problems for the
great number of working American families in the mid to lower income brackets
who pay taxes, and in part, are paying the program's agencies for: salaries,
bonuses, benefits, operating costs such travel, recruitment, meetings,
running a (bureaucratic) service business which the TAXPAYERS support for the
benefit of a very few qualified "host familes" in the upper income bracket.
If you cannot understand the implications of how UNDEMOCRATIC and
unconstitutional this program is, please let me know - because, Tammy, it is
***Nan. I apologize. This whole thing is entirely my fault. When I began
answering your posts, I assumed (1) that you had some knowledge about how the
au pair program and the tax code work; and (2) that you were not a lunatic. I
was wrong on both counts. I won't be bothering you any more.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Mon, Nov 24, 1997 20:14 EST
>Seems pretty clear to me, Nan.
>Our government which valiantly fights against any funding for decent child
care for most working parents, it provides a program to recruit hired live-in
servants for the wealthy. The girls are
recruited by phony ads for the glamour and glitter of living in
America forgetting about the messy business of changing diapers
and doing dishes.
What is not to understand?
Or maybe Tammy thinks lots of factory workers, waitresses and
clerical workers have live-in servants. Best, Terry>
Hi Terry, how have you been?
It is gratifing that someone else sees behind the government's barrage. I
absolutely cannot understand why citizens accept
at face value what the government wants them to believe.
Funded programs and government spending legislatures are coated with
misleading and misrepresentive rhetoric. If citizens evaluated in depth the
worthiness of spending proposals before going to Congress, the U.S. would not
be operating on a deficit tradition. So much bureaucratic garbage it is a
disgrace. Especially, with the threat of impending Soc Sec bankruptcy - maybe
Mexico can bail the American elderly out in 2008.
Indifference and complacency are enemies to freedom.
The Au Pair program is one small example of betraying the trust and benefit due
to ALL the American people. As long as the government forces polarization by
pandering issues (just like in the old days in the monarchial courts), the
issue of its own accountability is obscured. In past history, the people were
held captive to DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS - nothing really changes that much. I
happen not to believe in the divine rights of politicians as governing powers.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments on this issue which has become my bete noire
for the week. You take care too, sincerely from Nan.
Martha Sprowles
John DAmato wrote:
>
> I think there are some misconceptions in this thread about the
> significance of nonprofit status.
>
> 1) Nonprofits that are 501(c)(3) organizations--sometimes referred to
> as public charities--are not funded by the federal government, and their
> employees are not employees of the federal government. For example,
> nonprofit universities (and churches which have bothered to go through the
> recognition of exemption process) are generally 501(c)(3) organizations,
> but their employees are their employees, not federal employees. Agencies
> of the federal government may be the source of grant money for 501(c)(3)
> organizations--e.g., grants by the DOE or NIMH to universities for
> research--, but the federal government doesn't routinely pay for the
> expenses of such organizations.
>
> 2) Donations to 501(c)(3) organizations are tax deductible; payments to
> 501(c)(3) organizations for services are not. The idea, here, is the idea
> of the gift. If you make a gift to a 501(c)(3) organization, i.e., don't
> receive anything in return for the contribution, then the gift is tax
> deductible. However, if you are receiving something for the "donation",
> then you really haven't made a gift--you've bought something. Think, for
> example, of tuition payments to universities. These aren't (usually) tax
> deductible (and are never tax deductible merely because the university is
> a 501(c)(3) organization) because the person making the payment is paying
> for a service. The same would be true for payments to an au pair
> organization. The payments would not be deductible as contributions to a
> charity by the payment makers.
>
> 3) If au pair agencies are 501(c)(3) organizations, then the tax issue
> and the fairness issue revolves around whether these organizations should
> be entitled to a tax break vis-a-vis for profit childcare organizations
> and persons not entitled to such a break.
>
> A 501(c)(3) organization does not have to pay federal income tax on its
> income, including income from performance of its exempt function. For
> example, a university does not have to pay tax on its tuition receipts
> (although it would have to pay tax on unrelated business income, e.g.,
> profits from sales of T-shirts, etc.).
>
> Why should an au pair agency be entitled to a tax break on its receipts
> from placing a caregiver in someone's home when competing childcare
> service providers are not entitled to such a break? Why should au pair
> agencies be favored with this competitive advantage in the childcare
> service market? To the extent that questions have been raised for this
> reason about the propriety of giving au pair agencies 501(c)(3) status, I
> think the questions are well-founded. Such organizations are clearly
> operated as, and are intended to be, businesses.
>
> 4) There is a deduction--although the precise details escape
> me--available to individual taxpayers for childcare payments in certain
> circumstances. The point of this deduction is to give taxpayers a break
> for childcare expenses necessary to permitting parents to work or seek
> education. To the extent that there was some tax advantage to the Eappens
> in having Woodward provide services, it probably has to do with this
> deduction, not the 501(c)(3) status of au pair agencies.
>
> I hope this helps on the tax issues raised by the Woodward case.
> John
Dear John,
Thanks for the explanations. It's been a long time since I did form
990's.
I think the problem Nan and I (and others) have with the au pair program
doesn't really have anything to do with the Eappens family--of course
they were entitled to use any sort of childcare they chose--but with the
proposition that the au pair program provides affordable childcare and
is available to all American taxpayers. This is clearly not the case.
There are other problems with the program beyond the unfair tax
situation. Rose forwarded me a magazine article about au pairs who were
miserable and stranded--one even eventually committed suicide after she
returned home. Someone in the article pointed out that the (mostly)
young women who want to be au pairs are often eager to escape
difficulties in their own lives and are hardly the best people to be in
charge of small children.
Martha
Martha Sprowles
Maggie8097 wrote:
>
> Nan wrote:
> This exclusive program is funded by the Govt. - by
> taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT which means ALL of
>
> **You are simply insane.
>
No, she isn't. These agencies don't receive checks from the US
government to pay their expenses, but because the agencies themselves
are able to provide high salaries and benefits to their officers,
without having to pay corporate taxes on this excess money (over and
above what it takes to get au pairs over here), they (the organizations)
are being underwritten by the US taxpayers. The taxes not paid by
organizations (and individuals) because of preferred status (such as
churches have) have to be made up by the rest of us. If EF Au Pair
operated as a for-profit corporation and paid taxes on its income,
everyone else's taxes could be lowered (in a minuscule way, of course,
but if *every* not-for-profit had to pay taxes, there would be a big
difference). In other words, *every* not-for-profit organization in
this country is at least indirectly supported by taxpayers. Nan feels,
rightly, that it's not fair for all of us to underwrite childcare for
the wealthiest citizens.
Martha
Martha Sprowles
> many people think 140.00 a week is so much for child care.
Of course it isn't much for child care. That's part of Nan's point.
The people who are using this cheap form of childcare are not the people
who *need* $140/week childcare, but the wealthier citizens of the US.
Yet all of us, rich and poor, who pay taxes help support the cost of
this program. And this isn't fair. If the US government is going to
endorse such a program, it ought to be made available to the people who
really need it--and it wouldn't be such a bad cultural experience for
the au pairs to understand what life in the US is like for the vast
majority of the population. As things stand now, this is almost an
indentured servant situation. And we are all helping to fund it.
You can't get child
> care for 2 kids for LESS than this. It is very reasonable. I don't think it is
> the BEST option for working parents, but I certainly don't think it is
> something only the "rich" can afford. Unless you have someone providing you
> child care for free, if you work you are going to have to pay this much for 2
> kids. And to get a tax deduction for it is all the more better. Why do you
> resent the program so much? It really sounds like a good thing. I think it
> would be better used for mothers who stay at home and need extra help, but it
> is an option even for single divorced working mothers. I assume you had to pay
> SOMEONE to care for your children while working. Wouldn't it have been a lot
> more convenient to have someone in home and have it tax deductible? Probably
> wouldn't have costed you anymore than you paid for your childcare.
Of *course* this is a great program--for the parents. I'm not so sure
it's great for the au pair, or for the children involved. Nan's point
is that she could not have come up with the big money upfront, the
desirable cultural milieu, the two weeks' paid vacation--plus room and
board and a $300 educational stipend. Paying out $140/week is the tip
of the iceberg. Do you really think that poor or even some middle-class
families would qualify to "represent the US?"
Martha
Martha Sprowles
Terry Hallinan wrote:
>
> nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>
> >Dear Tammy, please read my (starting 11-20-97) postings under this topic. My
> >posts clearlly explain my objections.
>
> >child care. You can't get child care for 2 kids for LESS than this. It is
> >very reasonable. I don't think it is the BEST option for working parents, but
> >I certainly don't think it is
> > something only the "rich" can afford. Unless you have someone providing you
> >child care for free, if you work you are going to have to pay this much for 2
> >kids. And to get a tax deduction for it is all the more better. Why do you
> >resent the program so much? >
>
>
> >I RESENT this phoney program ON PRINCIPLE because the average working family
> >the Govt. - by taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT
> >taxpayers. Only approx. 40,000 upper income families benefit from the
> >program. This program is NOT designed to solve any childcare problems for the
> >great number of working American families in the mid to lower income brackets
> >who pay taxes, and in part, are paying the program's agencies for: salaries,
> >bonuses, benefits, operating costs such travel, recruitment, meetings,
> >supplies, advertising, etc.
>
>
> Our government which valiantly fights against any funding for decent
> child care for most working parents, it provides a program to recruit
> hired live-in servants for the wealthy. The girls are recruited by
> phony ads for the glamour and glitter of living in America forgetting
> about the messy business of changing diapers and doing dishes.
>
> What is not to understand?
>
> Or maybe Tammy thinks lots of factory workers, waitresses and clerical
> workers have live-in servants.
Nicely done, Terry.
Martha
sue
NanLeeCro wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
> >From: maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097)
> >Date: Sat, Nov 22, 1997 08:19 EST
>
> For your further edification:
> Copied article:
> -------------------------------------------------
> Host Family Qualifications and Responsibilities
> In the majority of cases, both parents work and many have very small
> children
> or infants. The Au Pair will be a contributing member of the household
>
> experiencing the "real" America, and that TV does not reflect the
> realities for
> the vast majority of the population!
> *LIKE BOTH PARENTS WORKING - 'REAL' AMERICA!*
> To take part in the Au Pair program, families must satisfy the local
> coordinator, through documentation and during an in-home interview,
> that they
> are suitable for participation. Each accepted family must agree to
> adhere to
> the Host Family Agreement, which:
>
> Requires that a private room be provided for the Au Pair.
>
> Specifies that the host family will include the Au Pair where possible
> in
> family meals, outings, holidays, and other events.
>
> Limits the contribution of the Au Pair to the host family to 45 hours
> of child
> care per week (no more than 10 hours a day) and not more than five and
> one half
> days per week.
>
> Requires the host family to give the Au Pair at least $128 per week on
> a
> mutually agreed upon day.
>
> Provides for the Au Pair one and one half days off each week,
> including a full
> Saturday or Sunday, with the opportunity to attend religious services
> if
> desired.
>
> Provides for the Au Pair one complete weekend off each month (from
> Friday
> evening to Monday morning.)
>
> Requires the host family to provide tuition fees of up to $500 per
> year.
>
> Requires the host family to give the Au Pair, in addition to weekly
> time off, a
> minimum of two weeks paid vacation time during the exchange.
>
> Requires families to participate in one "family day conference" per
> year
> sponsored by Au Pair USA/ InterExchange.
>
> Requires that host parents be U.S. citizens or legal permanent
> residents.
>
> Requires that host parents speak fluent English.
>
> Requires that at least one parent, or other responsible adult remain
> at home
> with the Au Pair during her first 3 days with the family.
>
> --------------end of copy article---------------------
Hey Nan!
Did you find those brochures as funny as I did? They had pictures of all
these blonde Nordic type girls sledding with the host family's kids, and
quotes like, "Our au pair is part of the family now. She enriches our
lives, and teaches our kids Swedish carols on Christmas."
Why do I get the impression that the reality falls far short of the
images presented in the literature?
I'd like to hear from people who actually HAVE au pairs to get their
take on what it's really like. Or from the au pairs themselves.
Sue
NanLeeCro
>Nan wrote:
This exclusive program is funded by the Govt. - by
taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT which means ALL of
their expenses are paid by the GOVT. - the taxpayers.>
>**You are simply insane.>
***Oh, I call it BLIND RAGE! After reading many articles oozing with the
VERY implication of "BOGUS" AP program.
Several reliable sources referred to "non-Profit agency, govt. funded
program." The following W-P article calls the program what it really is:
"Uncle Sam's Babysitting Service" and "bogus".
The taxpayers are paying for this sham by the bureaucratic drain right through
Congress. Congress spends the Nation's worth. I refer you to this
Washington-Post article which is snipped because of its length:
A LOOK AT . . . Au Pairs
Uncle Sam's Babysitting Service
By Alvin A. Snyder
Sunday, November 9, 1997; Page C03
The Washington Post
The conviction of Louise Woodward in the death of
8-month-old Matthew Eappen raises serious questions about
the merits and regulation of an international exchange program
that put a 18-year-old British girl in sole charge of an infant
boy. ,......... An increasing number of American host families, however, seem
to look upon au pairs as a source of a year's affordable full-time babysitting.
And the United States Information Agency (USIA), which oversees the program as
part of its educational and cultural exchange activities, is in no position to
regulate what has become a booming child-care business.
The current setup also pleases families -- and some members of Congress -- who
have come to rely more and more on this form of child care.
Despite the fact that USIA officials have revealed their inability
to oversee the program properly, Congress appears happy
with the status quo. And because USIA programs are
restricted to applicants from overseas, the American public
understands very little about how the organization works.
If the Labor Department were involved in regulating the au pair
program -- which it should because 45 hours a week is a
full-time job -- the department would be in a position to
enforce regulations. If the program were moved to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice
Department, regulators would also surely modify it.
In 1988, when the USIA complained to Congress that it was
administering a program of "live-in domestics," it was told to
continue the program as it was and not to make any changes
unless Congress specified otherwise. Congress also rejected
the USIA's request to cut back the au pair workweek to 30
hours. Au pair families flooded the USIA and Congress with
letters, faxes and phone calls supporting the au pair program as
it stood. "All hell broke loose," recalled USIA's general counsel
Normand Poirier. A former general counsel of the USIA told
me that executives of the au pair agencies claimed that anything
less than 45 hours a week would be "commercially unmarketable."
Then, in 1990, Congress mandated that the USIA continue
administering the au pair program "without change" until such
time as the program is transferred to another federal agency.
But the USIA, ... -- shouldn't be saddled with bogus educational
and cultural programs like this one. But it seems that it will
continue to be. (NLC: NOTE BOGUS!!!)
Last month, President Clinton, who has the authority to
conduct the government's foreign cultural exchange activities,
signed a bill placing the au pair program permanently under the
aegis of USIA, where Congress is happy to leave it. It's time to
hold both the president and Congress accountable through
public congressional hearings.
© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company
(snipped long article by NLC)
NanLeeCro
Maggie, you have bothered not one bit. Before you leave me alone in my
hyper-manic state as I break into the inner sanctum of corruption, read my
post with the Washington Post article dated Nov 9, 1997 - the reporter calls
the AP program "bogus" and his reasons why.
Don't apologized, I thought you had an agenda to detract from the facts and the
truth of the matter, and strove to delude everyone into accepting the au pair
program as pristine - sort of a need to control the thinking on the issue.
Sincerely from Nan
>Nan wrote>I RESENT this phoney program ON PRINCIPLE because the average
working family absolutely CANNOT qualify for this program. This exclusive
program is funded by the Govt. - by taxpayers. >
Maggie, if you cared: The people, the taxpaying citizens and their families,
lose great benefit of the nations'wealth because of the govt/congress' waste
and self-interest - like perpetuating the bogus Au Pair program. Both
entrenched parties are responsible. It is their grande monopoly board. ONLY
the insane would not care.
>
>Nan wrote:
>I RESENT this phoney program ON PRINCIPLE because the average working family
absolutely CANNOT qualify for this program. This exclusive program is funded by
the Govt. - by taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT
which means ALL of their operating expenses are paid by the GOVT. - the
taxpayers. Only approx. 40,000 upper income families benefit from the
program. This program is NOT designed to solve any childcare problems for the
great number of working American families in the mid to lower income brackets
who pay taxes, and in part, are paying the program's agencies for: salaries,
bonuses, benefits, operating costs such travel, recruitment,
meetings, supplies, advertising, etc. In other words, all of the
inflated expenses of running a (bureaucratic) service business
which the TAXPAYERS support for the benefit of a very few qualified "host
familes" in the upper income bracket.
If you cannot understand the implications of how DEMOCRATIC and
unconstitutional this program is............
Martha Sprowles
Maggie8097 wrote:
>
> Ginmarie replied:
> > Maybe Martha's $230.00 quote was and is correct. Is it not possible that the
> > agency takes a cut out of those weekly salaries.???
> >
> Maggie said:
> > ***Anything is possible, of course, but if the agency was taking a cut of the
> > weekly salaries they would be in violation of the law. I can't imagine
> > everyone this agency talking to being ignorant of the law, so I would bet
> > they'd be reported pretty quickly.
> >
> > Maggie
>
> Linda asked:
> If the agency isn't supposed to take a "cut", how do they earn *their*
> money? IOW, who pays the agencies: the families or the au pairs?
>
> **The au pairs pay nothing. The host families pay an approximately $4,500
> "program fee" to the agency (including the host family's application fee).
> This covers paperwork and administrative costs for the au pair and round-trip
> airfare. The agencies themselves are non-profit institutions, and as such,
> just need to break even to remain in operation.
>
This is true, but I would point out that recent years have seen
revelations of outrageouly high salaries for CEOs of not-for-profit
organizations such as United Way, as well as luxurious perks in the form
of "training seminars" at places like Hilton Head Island. These
expenses are underwritten indirectly by the taxpayers. In other words,
many not-for-profits could operate much leaner, saving, in the long run,
tax money.
Martha
sue
Wolfie =^..^= wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:00:03 -0800, sue <incr...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
> -
> >
> >
> >I'd like to hear from people who actually HAVE au pairs to get their
> >take on what it's really like. Or from the au pairs themselves.
> >Sue
> >
>
> Well, I wasn't an au pair, but I was a live-in nanny some years ago
> and it was one of the worst experiences of my
> life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Wolfie
Well, here's the thing about au pairs, and childcare in general. Nobody
DOUBTS that it has to be the worst job, or at least in the top ten list
of bad jobs. I admire anybody who works with children, or cares for
them, but I can imagine it is really tough to take care of them full
time when they aren't even yours! Hell, at least teachers get to go home
at the end of the day! So, in Louise's case, I can definitely see how
frustrating things could have gotten, but don't think that is a good
excuse for...well you know what I think about that touchy subject.
Thanks for your post.
Sue
>
>
> There are 2 means of refuge from the miseries of life; music and
> cats.=^..^=~ Albert Schweitzer
> Remove "my cat eats spam" to email me
sue
Wolfie =^..^= wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:00:03 -0800, sue <incr...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
> -
> >
> >
> >I'd like to hear from people who actually HAVE au pairs to get their
> >take on what it's really like. Or from the au pairs themselves.
> >Sue
> >
>
> Well, I wasn't an au pair, but I was a live-in nanny some years ago
> and it was one of the worst experiences of my
> life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Wolfie
Well, here's the thing about au pairs, and childcare workers in general.
Wolfie =^..^=
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:00:03 -0800, sue <incr...@megsinet.net> wrote:
-
>
>
>I'd like to hear from people who actually HAVE au pairs to get their
>take on what it's really like. Or from the au pairs themselves.
>Sue
>
Well, I wasn't an au pair, but I was a live-in nanny some years ago
and it was one of the worst experiences of my
life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wolfie
There are 2 means of refuge from the miseries of life; music and cats.=^..^=~ Albert Schweitzer
JBrown6000
maggie says:
<<***The only tax advantage to people who employ an au pair is that they don't
have to withhold taxes and FICA, or pay FICA. Zoe Baird managed to get this
particular tax advantage without even hiring an au pair.
**Why are you offering this tax evasion as if it were nothing? What does Zoe
Baird have to do with anything? Nanleecro has been discussing the deception
involved with this tax-supported agency that supplies cheap labor to the chosen
few, and you scream endlessly that there is only a "tiny" rip off. It's still
a rip-off.
jb
Pat Fish1
>I
>absolutely cannot understand why citizens accept
>at face value what the government wants them to believe.
>Funded programs and government spending legislatures are coated with
>misleading and misrepresentive rhetoric. If citizens evaluated in depth the
>worthiness of spending proposals before going to Congress, the U.S. would
>not
>be operating on a deficit tradition. So much bureaucratic garbage it is a
>disgrace. Especially, with the threat of impending Soc Sec bankruptcy -
>maybe
>Mexico can bail the American elderly out in 2008.
>Indifference and complacency are enemies to freedom.
>The Au Pair program is one small example of betraying the trust and benefit
>due
>to ALL the American people.
Well Nan, if it makes you feel any better, I tend to agree with you that there
is something shabby about this au pair program. While I don't think it to be
the enclave of the wealthy (as in millionaires), I don't think any sort of
average person could afford it. I also agree that there are some powerful
political forces keeping this thing alive. And the whole thing is some sort of
pandering to the "well off" who are probably...well, judges, politicians,
district attorneys, doctors, lawyers...the types that could afford it.
And it's been a problem even back when that other au pair torched a baby in her
care. Read "Circle of Fire" by Louise Eggerton. I'm convinced Olivia killed
that baby, but was aquitted. To add insult to injury, this government backed
(not financed, I understand, but backed to the extent of tax exemption) program
recruits these girls under false pretenses, brings them to a strange country
with no warning and improper training for the work and responsibility involved,
then accepts a few child murders as the price we have to pay!
I would also like to comment on this tax deduction thing. Unless the law has
changed since I had a young child, ALL expenses spent on child care are
deductible...as a direct tax credit as opposed to tax-free income. There is
some limit to the deduction, but everyone in America is entitled to it,
providing they have children under 14 in some sort of child care for the
purpose of continuing employment.
The au pair agencies are tax-exempt, which really is a bit of a crime as I'll
be my first born those administrators pull in a pretty penny.
A whole lot of influential and powerful people enjoy this au pair system and,
as such, the silly thing will continue. They will call it a cultural thing, or
stand on the morality of spreading America's song. This is bullshit. It's a
convenience for the powerful....that's all. They tell us minions are sorts of
crap.
Pat Fish/Merryland
glas
Pat Fish1 wrote ...
And good heavens Pat, where have you been?
glas
Yve Skeet
--------------0A6F0A49E889C9475AFACF40
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Wolfie =^..^= wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:00:03 -0800, sue <incr...@megsinet.net>
wrote:
<BR>-
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>I'd like to hear from people who actually HAVE au pairs to get their
<BR>>take on what it's really like. Or from the au pairs themselves.
<BR>>Sue
<BR>>
<P>Well, I wasn't an au pair, but I was a live-in nanny some years ago
<BR>and it was one of the worst experiences of my
<BR>life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<BR>Wolfie</BLOCKQUOTE>
I second that emotion.
<P>I did a summer stint as a "Mother's Helper" in a tiny cottage in the
Catskills with an 8-year old and his manic, condescending, and overindulgent
mom (Dad visited on weekends so they could keep their affairs separate)
when I was 15.
<P>It was often a 24/7 type job, and when I got a night off, I went wild
(many vivid memories of the staff barracks, but no Dirty Dancing).
It was the first time that I could really let loose, and although my adventures
could never hold a fanatical candle to umpteen viewings of 'Rent' (does
anybody know how she paid for these?!!?), I crossed a lot of lines that
summer. And, as I said, I didn't get out all that much which did
engender some resentment of the family and the spoiled youth.
<P>BUT the only line I ever crossed when it came to childcare was ONCE
raising my voice to the kid. That was at 15, not 19.
<P>OT, or at least for this particular Louise thread, my parents came here
from England as adults and I lived there for a bit as a child, and I was--if
anything--raised with a disgust of racial, or any other, prejudices.
"Wogs" are the stuff of storybooks and it was never suggested to me that
they had anything to do with real people.
<P><IMG SRC="cid:part1.347BE...@netcom.com" HEIGHT=95 WIDTH=400></HTML>
--------------0A6F0A49E889C9475AFACF40
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Content-ID: <part1.347BE...@netcom.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\nsmailDQ.jpeg"
<encoded_portion_removed>
--------------0A6F0A49E889C9475AFACF40--
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Wed, Nov 26, 1997 08:35 EST
>>I bsolutely cannot understand why citizens accept
at face value what the government wants them to believe.
Funded programs and government spending legislatures are coated with
misleading and misrepresentive rhetoric. If citizens evaluated in depth the
worthiness of spending proposals before going to Congress, the U.S. would not
be operating on a deficit tradition. So much bureaucratic garbage it is a
disgrace. Especially, with the threat of impending Soc Sec bankruptcy -
maybe Mexico can bail the American elderly out in 2008.
Indifference and complacency are enemies to freedom.
The Au Pair program is one small example of betraying the trust and benefit due
to ALL the American people. >
>Well Nan, if it makes you feel any better, I tend to agree with you that
there is something shabby about this au pair program. While I don't think it
to be the enclave of the wealthy (as in millionaires), I don't think any sort
of average person could afford it. I also agree that there are some powerful
political forces keeping this thing alive. And the whole thing is some sort of
pandering to the "well off" who are probably...well, judges, politicians,
district attorneys, doctors, lawyers...the types that could afford it. And
it's been a problem even back when that other au pair torched a baby in her
care. Read "Circle of Fire" by Louise Eggerton. I'm convinced Olivia killed
that baby, but was aquitted. To add insult to injury, this government backed
(not financed, I understand, but backed to the extent of tax exemption) program
recruits these girls under false pretenses, brings them to a strange country
with no warning and improper training for the work and responsibility involved,
then accepts a few child murders as the price we have to pay! would also like
to comment on this tax deduction thing. Unless the law has changed since I had
a young child, ALL expenses spent on child care are deductible...as a direct
tax credit as opposed to tax-free income. There is some limit to the
deduction, but everyone in America is entitled to it,
providing they have children under 14 in some sort of child care for the
purpose of continuing employment. The au pair agencies are tax-exempt, which
really is a bit of a crime as I'll be my first born those administrators pull
in a pretty penny. A whole lot of influential and powerful people enjoy this au
pair system and,
as such, the silly thing will continue. They will call it a cultural thing,
or stand on the morality of spreading America's song. This is bullshit. It's
a convenience for the powerful....that's all. They tell us minions are sorts
of crap.
Pat Fish/Merryland>
Dear Pat Fish,
Very well expressed! If we could scratch below the surface
of this program and others, the symbiotic network that benefits
a tier of related bureaucrats and politicians, and some priviledged, would be
revealed. In my mind, the taxpayers pay for it - as they pay to cover the
DEFICIT spending of Congress. It means defrauding the public and the public
funds. The nation's wealth does not BELONG to the government - the wealth is
entrusted to the government . The program is defined as govt. funded/mandated
funding and the agencies have tax exempt/non-profit status - but all of does
deeper than this superficial definition leading to a myriad of leeches.
By principle, it serves not to suppress the truth, but to disclose
the truth and facts. Congress supports the program and extended and expanded
it. If it were not for the Woodward case, the Au Pair program and its true
"nature" would not be known at all. Not to me, for sure. Thanks for your
supportive comments -
To quote Pat:
"They will call it a cultural thing, or stand on the morality of spreading
America's song. This is bullshit. It's a convenience for the
powerful....that's all. They tell us minions all sorts of crap."
Sincerely from Nan picking up the muckrakes.............
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Wed, Nov 26, 1997 00:44 EST
>So, in Louise's case, I can definitely see how
frustrating things could have gotten, but don't think that is a good
excuse for...well you know what I think about that touchy subject.
Thanks for your post.
Sue>
Dear Sue,
The AP program is widely $$advertised and recruited in Europe.
The expectations for prospective Au Pairs and Host Familys are heightened by
misrepresentation: For the AP a super cultural ride in American and for the
Host a live-in babysitting domestic.
Sounds like the twain does not often meet.
Sincerely from Nan
Maggie8097
Maggie wrote:
<<***The only tax advantage to people who employ an au pair is that they don't
have to withhold taxes and FICA, or pay FICA. Zoe Baird managed to get this
particular tax advantage without even hiring an au pair.
jb replied:
**Why are you offering this tax evasion as if it were nothing? What does Zoe
Baird have to do with anything? Nanleecro has been discussing the deception
involved with this tax-supported agency that supplies cheap labor to the chosen
few, and you scream endlessly that there is only a "tiny" rip off. It's still
a rip-off.
**For Christ's sake, jb, follow the thread. The Zoe Baird comment was in
response to Martha's post (which I copied in my reply)--ask her why she
mentioned Zoe Baird.
And Nanleecro is either horribly misinformed or a troll. There is no tax
evasion involved. The entire program is perfectly legal. Au pair agency
employees pay taxes like everyone else and host families pay the program's
administrative costs. The only tax advantage is that the agencies' theoretical
profits are exempt from income taxes. Big deal--so are those of the
Unification Church, Chelsea Clinton's private school and every registered
charity in the country. I simply don't find it that egregious.
Maggie8097
Pat wrote:
I would also like to comment on this tax deduction thing. Unless the law has
changed since I had a young child, ALL expenses spent on child care are
deductible...as a direct tax credit as opposed to tax-free income. There is
some limit to the deduction, but everyone in America is entitled to it,
providing they have children under 14 in some sort of child care for the
purpose of continuing employment.
***Just to clarify, Pat, childcare expenses are not deductible. There *is* a
child care *credit* which doesn't come close to covering ALL expenses on child
care. Families may claim a credit equal to 20% to 30% (depending on their
income) of the lower of $4800 or their actual childcare costs (for 2 or more
children). The maximum childcare credit allowed is $1,440 for those families
making less than $10,000/year and $960 for those making over $28,000.
(Note--these numbers are for the 1995 tax year).
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Tue, Nov 25, 1997 00:57 EST
>***Nan. I apologize. This whole thing is entirely my fault. When I began
answering your posts, I assumed (1) that you had some knowledge about how the
au pair program and the tax code work; and (2) that you were not a lunatic. I
was wrong on both counts. I won't be bothering you any more.
Maggie>
Maggie,
I commend your not resorting to calling me names such as the obligatory
"troll", anti-government paranoid, rabble rouser, anti-establishmentarian,
lunatic, smear campaigner, Marxist, et al. An intelligent person does not
lower oneself to the exit tactic of the vanquished.
Maggie8097
Linda asked:
> If the agency isn't supposed to take a "cut", how do they earn *their*
> money? IOW, who pays the agencies: the families or the au pairs?
>
> **The au pairs pay nothing. The host families pay an approximately $4,500
> "program fee" to the agency (including the host family's application fee).
> This covers paperwork and administrative costs for the au pair and round-trip
> airfare. The agencies themselves are non-profit institutions, and as such,
> just need to break even to remain in operation.
>
Martha replied:
This is true, but I would point out that recent years have seen
revelations of outrageouly high salaries for CEOs of not-for-profit
organizations such as United Way, as well as luxurious perks in the form
of "training seminars" at places like Hilton Head Island. These
expenses are underwritten indirectly by the taxpayers. In other words,
many not-for-profits could operate much leaner, saving, in the long run,
tax money.
***So what? Do you have any knowledge of exhorbitant salaries for CEOs of au
pair agencies? If your interest is in reducing the burden on taxpayers, it
seems to me your ire would be better directed at those tax-exempt institutions,
like the United Way, that you know are over-paying executives.
Do you really think that if au pair agencies were required to pay taxes the
U.S. taxpayer would be any better off? The agencies would likely cease to
exist without the government mandate, because the au pairs probably couldn't
get work permits. The agencies' employees would be out of a job, and therefore
not paying into the tax system, and a few thousand of the former host families
would have to find alternate childcare arrangements. Based on my experience
with childcare providers in a large urban area, many of the couples who had
hired au pairs would replace them with undocumented (i.e., cheap) foreign
workers who would, of course, not pay taxes on their income. I doubt it would
be much more of a wash in the long run.
If I was of the mind to agitate about this issue (rich parents benefiting from
the tax-exempt status of an organization providing them services), I'd be much
more inclined to protest the tax-exempt status of exclusive private schools.
They serve the ultra-rich (tuition of $10,000+++ in many communities, starting
in kindergarten), and parents and grandparents can make tax-exempt
"contributions," that essentially "buy" scholarships for their children. And
there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are au pair agencies.
Get some perspective.
Maggie8097
Nan wrote:
> This exclusive program is funded by the Govt. - by
> taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT which means ALL
of
>
Maggie replied:
> **You are simply insane.
>
Martha said:
No, she isn't. These agencies don't receive checks from the US
government to pay their expenses, but because the agencies themselves
are able to provide high salaries and benefits to their officers,
without having to pay corporate taxes on this excess money (over and
above what it takes to get au pairs over here), they (the organizations)
are being underwritten by the US taxpayers.
***Hate to disagree with you, Martha, but I have to on 2 counts. First, anyone
who believes that expenses of non-profit organizations (churches, schools,
charities) are paid by the government *is* insane. And second, the great,
great majority of *taxable* small businesses are run the way you describe
non-profits as being run. Owners, who are typically also employees, are paid
high salaries, which are deductible. These high salaries reduce reported
profits down to the point where taxes are as low as possible, consistent with
retaining enough earnings in the company to keep it operational. IOW, even if
the agencies were for-profit, domestic nanny placement services, they'd still
be small, owner-managed organizations and I seriously doubt they'd be paying
more than a pittance into the tax system.
Martha wrote:
The taxes not paid by
organizations (and individuals) because of preferred status (such as
churches have) have to be made up by the rest of us. If EF Au Pair
operated as a for-profit corporation and paid taxes on its income,
everyone else's taxes could be lowered (in a minuscule way, of course,
but if *every* not-for-profit had to pay taxes, there would be a big
difference). In other words, *every* not-for-profit organization in
this country is at least indirectly supported by taxpayers. Nan feels,
rightly, that it's not fair for all of us to underwrite childcare for
the wealthiest citizens.
***I am looking forward to reading Nan's (and your) rants about the tax-exempt
status of churches and schools.
JIM FILZ
Dear Maggie:
I've had the pleasure of working for a "non-profit", and from further
experience, I find most of them are "egregious". It's more often than not, a
big scam, perpetuating the "administration". We needed the United Way scandal
to wake people up, and look at how their contributions dropped. I don't want to
mention how university presidents are overpaid, and they are not responsible to
stockholders, only to the friendly board of trustees. Yeh, I think the AuPair
program is certainly "egregious". And this is so far off the subject of murder,
I don't even know why I'm discussing it.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Tue, Nov 25, 1997 11:59 EST
(important information regretfully snipped)
> Why should an au pair agency be entitled to a tax break on its receipts
from placing a caregiver in someone's home when
competing childcare service providers are not entitled to such a
break? Why should au pair agencies be favored with this
competitive advantage in the childcare service market? To the
extent that questions have been raised for this reason about the
propriety of giving au pair agencies 501(c)(3) status, I
think the questions are well-founded. Such organizations are
clearly operated as, and are intended to be, businesses.
4) There is a deduction--although the precise details escape
me--available to individual taxpayers for childcare payments in certain
circumstances. The point of this deduction is to give taxpayers a break for
childcare expenses necessary to permitting
parents to work or seek education. To the extent that there was
some tax advantage to the Eappens in having Woodward provide services, it
probably has to do with this deduction, not the 501(c)(3)
status of au pair agencies.
I hope this helps on the tax issues raised by the Woodward case.
>John>
John, your information is appreciated. In my research, the "Au Pair Program"
has been defined variously as "federally funded, mandated funded, government
supported, government
sponsored. " The term "funded" is ever-present.
There appears in the related Bills' texts *appropriations* for this program.
Congress has extended and expanded the program. The Washington-Post reporter
(ref. the article I posted) refers to the "program" as "BOGUS."
Sincerely from Nan
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <19971125052...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Maggie8097 <maggi...@aol.com> wrote:
>Nan wrote:
>This exclusive program is funded by the Govt. - by
>taxpayers. The agencies (approx. 8) operate as NON-PROFIT which means ALL of
>their expenses are paid by the GOVT. - the taxpayers.
>
Many people have very strange beliefs on what non-profit means. It does
not mean that the services are free. It basically means that the
organization cannot give profit to any share holders.
Osmo
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Wed, Nov 26, 1997 23:45 EST
Perspective on Maggie's "So what!" to PRINCIPLES"
Martha wrote:>These expenses are underwritten indirectly by the taxpayers. In
other words, many not-for-profits could operate much leaner, saving, in the
long run, tax money.
Maggie:***So what? Do you have any knowledge of exhorbitant salaries for CEOs
of au pair agencies? If your interest is in reducing the burden on taxpayers,
it seems to me your ire would be better directed at those tax-exempt
institutions, like the United Way, that you know are over-paying executives.
Do you really think that if au pair agencies were required to pay taxes the
U.S. taxpayer would be any better off? The agencies would likely cease to
exist without the government mandate, because the au pairs probably couldn't
>get work permits. The agencies' employees would be out of a job, and
therefore
not paying into the tax system, and a few thousand of the former host families
would have to find alternate childcare arrangements.
Get some perspective. Maggie>
MAGGIE, HERE'S SOME PERSPECTIVE:
excerpt: "information dated it October 5, 1995.
The US au pair program, since its inception, has been specifically
authorized by Congress. The program is typically reauthorized for Four-year
periods of time. Language to reauthorize the au pair program is included in
several pieces of legislation currently pending before the Congress. Both the
House and Senate version of the State Department Reauthorization and
Reorganization Act contain language to extend authority to operate au pair
programs. Unfortunately, this legislation is stalled. Language to extend
authority to *administer au pair programs* is also contained in the *Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996*, as passed by the Senate.
There is no similar language in the House billFY1997 Commerce, Justice, State,
& the Judiciary Appropriations."
NanLeeCro
Maggie wrote:>**For Christ's sake, jb, follow the thread. The Zoe Baird
comment was in response to Martha's post (which I copied in my reply)--ask her
why she mentioned Zoe Baird. And Nanleecro is either horribly misinformed or
a troll. There is no tax
evasion involved. The entire program is perfectly legal. Au pair agency
employees pay taxes like everyone else and host families pay the program's
administrative costs.
MAGGIE: re: the administrative costs, please read the
following excerpt, source prep. by Assoc.Amer.Univ:
"USIA--Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs
The bill includes a total of $185,000,000 for the Educational and Cultural
Exchange Programs of the United States Information Agency. This amount is
$14,727,000 less than in fiscal year 1996, and $17,412,000 below the budget
request. In addition, USIA expects to receive a transfer of approximately
$30,000,000, the same amount as in fiscal year 1996, to continue Freedom
Support
Act exchange programs. Within the total, the Committee recommends $98,000,000
for the Fulbright program, and 87,000,000 for other programs. To the maximum
extent possible, the conferees urge that the following ex-change programs be
supported: the International Visitors Program,..."
The transmutation and transfiguration of the AP program:
1916-Mutual Educational & Cultural Exhange Act 1961,
(Faullbright-Hays Act).
1990-Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act
1997- H.R. 1757, sec.1314.AuPair Extension,
Foreign Affairs Reform & Restructuring Act of 1997.
Maggie writes:. >Big deal--so are those of the
Unification Church, Chelsea Clinton's private school and every registered
charity in the country. I simply don't find it that egregious.>
Well, MAGGIE, the whole damn AU PAIR program is phoney and egregious. The AP
program agencies (8 of them) are administered by public funding under the
auspices of USIA.
You CANNOT possibly compare the Bogus and misrepresented "value" of the AP
program to value of churches, charities and private schools which have more far
reaching benefit to the public and society.
"Big Deal!" says dismissive Maggie. And Saddam supports the sciences.
Defrauding the public is a GREAT BIG DEAL!
Most sincerely from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Eappen Family Secrets
>Date: Thu, Nov 27, 1997 06:10 EST
Dear Jim,
Depending on one's principles, one could call "egregious" a
manslaughter on public funds. Sincerely from Nan