Hiring a teenager as a household employee
First you need to ensure that you are not violating any Federal child labor laws. I would look at this: U.S. Dept of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Standards for 14- and 15-Year Olds in Nonagricultural Employment. These were the items that pertained to Federal Law, for 14 year olds: 14 is the minimum age for employment in specified occupations outside   of school hours for limited periods of time each day and each week.   Fourteen- and 15-Year-Olds May Not Be Employed: There is a section on minimum allowed wage payment to young workers, and also a list of allowed types of work for 14 and 15 year old's. The type of household helper tasks described definitely fell within what was allowed for child labor. The same page details what sort of forms need to be filled out. I think this is something that is done quite commonly. Here are specifics in New York State for minimum wage for minors and for employing 14 year olds. Here is what I was able to find: Yes, but there are special instructions for minors: Working hours: New York State labor laws are slightly more strict than the federal: https://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/nyvsfed.shtm Minimum wage: The Dept of Labor's Youth & Labor page states: Occupations such as babysitting are not subject to the minimum wage law. No supporting documentation is given. Another page describes the Youth Minimum Wage Program: A minimum wage of not less than $4.25 may be paid to employees under the age of 20 for their first 90 consecutive calendar days  However, I can't find any such exception in New York State minimum wage law. According to Publication 926, Household Employer's Tax Guide: Federal income tax withholding No, I am not required to withhold federal income taxes from a household employee.  If we both want them to be withheld, a W-4 should be submitted to me. State income tax withholding No, according to NYS Pub 27: Withholding income tax (federal or New York State) from wages paid to household employees is voluntary on your part and your employee Social security and medicare No, I am not required to withhold FICA taxes because when calculated wages, I should not include: An employee who is under the age of 18 at any time during the year.   Exception: Count these wages if providing household services is the   employee's principal occupation. If the employee is a student,   providing household services is not considered to be his or her   principal occupation. Unemployment insurance No, I don't think I have to pay federal unemployment tax.  I think the exception for FICA applies to FUTA.  For New York (according to Household Employers Guide for Unemployment Insurance), there is an exception for paying state unemployment insurance: Daytime students who attend elementary or high school (However, you must pay UI taxes on wages you pay these students if you are liable under FUTA.) I can't find any specific requirements, but aside from numbers of hours times rate of pay, you might want to consider the information required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act: Also, consider this requirements from the NY Minimum Wage Act Every employer shall keep true and accurate records of hours worked by   each employee covered by an hourly minimum wage rate, the wages paid   to all employees, and such other information as the commissioner deems   material and necessary, and shall, on demand, furnish to the   commissioner or his duly authorized representative a sworn statement   of the same.
"Holy shit its people like you who can't be won over and complain about everything.  ""Costoso pays its employees well"" You: Fuck them, they don't employ enough people!!!    ""Costco reduces pay to hire more employees"" You: Fuck them they're literally Walmart!!!!" "Incremental profit, not revenue. If the incremental profit I project from an additional hire is greater than the cost. Taxes drive the cost up and the profit down, depending on the tax. Saying ""I will hire no matter what taxes are levied against me"" is just as ridiculous as saying ""I will not hire if one cent is levied against me"".   At the end of the day, profits are the source of future expansion and investment (we are not publicly traded). Taxes effectively reduce the amount we have left to invest. They do not reduce this amount to zero, but they do reduce it.   You are right to imply that I want the business to grow constantly, but that requires investment of actual money before the top or bottom line impact happens, months or years in advance. Sometimes, you take a risk that doesn't pan out, and that money is gone forever. Sometimes it develops into a profitable segment of the business. In wither case, taxes reduce the chunk of change we can use for this kind of activity.  I sense latent hostility in your phrasing, but I hope I am wrong. It feels like you are accusing me of making a profit, but I openly admit to making a profit. I do not view this as something bad. It is profitability that allows me to increase salary and benefit levels for employees, try to continually improve working conditions, invest in new equipment, spend on r&amp;amp;d to make better products, and of course increase my personal income.  I try to align the way in which i make money personally with constantly making customers and employees happier. Happy customers means more revenue and happy employees means better processes, better ideas, and more profit. I don't view this as bad, and I hope I read emotion into your comment that you did not mean. If so, I apologize in advance, but if you did mean to be hostile, I hope you at least understand where I am coming from now.  Edit: grammar" &gt;Says who?  Says the business that created the position.  Are they looking for someone to work all day, every day, and therefore require a full salary that supports adult life? Or are they looking for someone to cover a 4 hour shift a few nights a week in their spare time?  &gt;Companies could easily cut a third of their workers and increase hours...  Why would they do that? That's a horrible business move.  If the job you need done is unskilled and no-responsibility, it just makes sense to hire teenagers and students to do it. They want beer money, and you want a simple job done cheap. Everyone wins.  Aldis, Costco, etc have different business models. They pay more to attract better employees, but not every business follows their model - nor could they.   As I said before, the problem is that we have a lack of actual full time jobs available. Not that fast food places pay beer money or refuse to turn register positions into career opportunities.  You can't empathize your way out of reality. WhyHellYeah, What do you do for a living? I am an accountant in the energy industry. I will never be a union member and at $50,000 a year I already make more money than 75% of people and 50% of all households in the USA... I am in the position where Unions are a threat to my lifestyle and income...   But I do know that collective bargaining is the only thing that prevents capitol from exploiting labor. I'm really curious why you feel differently?   &gt;but EEOC is expanding  Whats wrong with an agency that is tasked to enforce laws against workplace discrimination expanding? Do you think that workplaces should discriminate against employees? Isn't it swell? But honestly, this situation is no different than if someone wouldn't hire a black person, an old person, a woman, etc. If hiring managers are stupid enough to ask questions like this, and openly discriminate in their hiring methods, the company is going to get what's coming to them. What you are describing is lifestyle creep. No where did you mention how to apply a living wage per person, let alone per situation.   What if I was hired at a wage of 1800/mo and only used 1500 for living expenses? Would that be a livable wage? What if I then decide to have 4 children over the next 4 years? Should the employer be forced to pay more on the aspect of having children alone? If that is the case, what are you incentivizing, child production or productivity? Unless those children work too (which is bad, mkay), they are at a net loss to the employer, and he/she has no ability to put you in a more productive spot, so what should this employer do?  At what point do you stop raising the UBI/minimum wage/whatever form of inflationary behavior and or redistribution? You are trying to achieve fairness across a wide spectrum of individuals and situations and there is zero gaurentee that all of them, or even most of them will benefit in a positive manner. An education. A new car. Houses are made bigger so that's not really fair. An article on here previously mentioned someone paying for a dependable car and a small apartment, along with school tuition working part time as a dishwasher.  Tuition at my closest state school (in state cost) is just under $9k per year. If you could only work 20 hours per week, amortized the school loan, payed $250 a month for an apartment with a roommate, $100 a month for utilities, $150 a month for groceries (all very difficult to achive and be healthy), you would have to make $15.35 an hour after taxes to do it without debt. This is assuming you don't have a car. Math time.  24 means 2 years out of college, or 6 years out of highschool, the latter being much more plausible given the poster's content quality.  $100k / 6 = $16.7k/year  16.7k / 52 weeks = $321/week  $321 / (11/hr * (1 - 15% taxes)) = 34 hours per week.  So he worked 34 hours per week, without fail, for 6 years, with NO expenses of any kind whatsoever.   OR, much more likely, he managed to save only $10k, not $100k in 6 years.