RSU Tax Implications of 83(b) Election
I can make that election to pay taxes now (even though they aren't vested) based on the dollar value at the time they are granted? That is correct. You must file the election with the IRS within 30 days after the grant (and then attach a copy to that year's tax return). would I not pay any taxes on the gains because I already claimed them as income? No, you claim income based on the grant value, the gains after that are your taxable capital gains. The difference is that if you don't use 83(b) election - that would not be capital gains, but rather ordinary salary income. what happens if I quit / get terminated after paying taxes on un-vested shares? Do I lose those taxes, or do I get it back in a refund next year? Or would it be a deduction next year? You lose these taxes. That's the risk you're taking. Generally 83(b) election is not very useful for RSUs of established public companies. You take a large risk of forfeited taxes to save the difference between capital gains and ordinary gains, which is not all that much. It is very useful when you're in a startup with valuations growing rapidly but stocks not yet publicly trading, which means that if you pay tax on vest you'll pay much more and won't have stocks to sell to cover for that, while the amounts you put at risk are relatively small.
Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk. The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040.  This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed.   Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term  Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW.   Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part.   The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936.  This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here. What makes you think anything would change? If they allowed Match money to be distributed tax free, they are missing out on a future tax revenue opportunity.  I think the more likely way they would stick it to us is to sunset the Roth 401(k) all together and make plans go back to the old school pre-tax and after-tax only, where even the earnings on after-tax are taxed at distribution. RSU are taxed when vested, based on their value at that point, as salary. If you don't sell to cover, you need to pay the taxes, if you sell to cover - you sell the portion that is worth the taxes (brokers do that automatically, and remit the taxes on your behalf). Once paid your taxes, it becomes a regular stock position - short term gains if you sell within a year after vesting, long term if you wait for more than a year. The consideration whether to wait or sell is as with any other investment, them being previously restricted has no meaning. You calculate the gain for each position, so the fact that you have more than one position is not a problem. The RSU income and the taxes paid will appear on your W2, so when the broker reports proceeds, you can show the basis and thus calculate the gain. See this question for some useful answers on how to report the RSU sale on your taxes. Taxing divident earnings hurts bank shareholders, customers, and qualitatively impacts the equities market for the worse because it  A) Lowers the incentive to hold an equity instrument over long and intermediate periods, incentivizes short term holdings creating a more chaoticly traded stock market with more pronounced crises occurring more frequently.  B) The resulting dead weight loss of long term equities investment constricts the capital available to banks and investment firms, limiting the services they can offer their customers, decreasing product yield and increasing borrowing costs.  C) The banks, having lost business in long term equities trading, then of course make less money and return less money to their shareholders.  No such things as a free lunch, my dude. "You are not interpreting the table correctly. The $20K ""base rate"" that you think should have been eliminated is in fact the total tax for the whole bracket. You only dipped partially into the bracket, and the $3K reduction accounts for that. Look at the table again: What it means is that if you earn $100K, you will pay $6897.50 + 25% of (100000-50400) = $12400. If you earn $140000, you'll pay $26835 + (140000-130150) * 0.28 = $2758. So why the difference between $26835 and $6897.50? That's exactly 25% of $79500, which is the difference between $130150 and $50400 - the whole value of the bracket." "Bernie: From what I read, I thought it was something like a fixed % on each.  You are right, there does need to be an enforcement agency, however, I do not believe it has to be government.  I think SROs like FINRA and SEC need to exist. However, there is no reason to believe that they couldn't exist without government.  Please don't even get started on Kansas. Trust me I know it far too well. I do not like Brownback, but his ""tax experiment"" was by no means what he was claiming/republicans claim.  He lowered taxes (sounds great) on businesses (wrong policy) mainly LLCs and LPs. While it was nice for some farmers and smaller business owners to not have to pay those taxes. However, there was an actual increase is KS sales tax from 6.15% to 6.5% which will obviously further disincentive buying. It wasn't much of a detaxation for regular people.  Here is what I do not understand, if you are going to stimulate growth, it should be done with the consumers. The consumers are what creates the demand for business products/services. I've always been a proponent of expanding the standard deduction, perhaps even adding back county and local sales tax deductions (or other regressive taxes), etc.  To all of my knowledge, I don't know of really any big deregulation they have done here. They did not shut down schools, there were schools that had to at some points but that option on the table but I do not believe any ever did.   Since the DOE has been created, test scores have virtually been flat despite increasing education spending nationwide by 4-5x.  My high school spent tens of thousands of dollars on Macbook Pros and iPads the same year they started having these ""big"" paper shortages. The students screwed around on the computers and tablets, we didn't use them for anything, and besides even if we did. Studies show that using them doesn't really help anyway. Schools/school boards do not know how to appropriate funds whatsoever.  There is no reason to believe that increased school funding helps students learn any more than others. In fact more funding per student goes to a lot of inner city schools than rural in the state of KS and they actually school a slight negative return.  I agree, and I will if become rich enough to first sustain myself I will, or perhaps I will move to Peter Thiel's seasteading island" I think you are overcomplicating the scenario by assuming a benefit that doesn't exist. Assume an employee earns 50k, before considering the MSP. The corporation wants to cover the MSP. They have two options: increase the salary to $50,900, or keep the salary the same and pay for the MSP directly. Both options increase the employee's taxable income by $900. Both options decrease the corporation's income by $900. Net tax for each is unchanged. *Note - I couldn't find any specific reference to the MSP in income tax documentation on either BC Finance's or CRA's website. I am assuming that it is treated as a regular cash benefit, though I am not 100% convinced this is the case. If I am wrong in this please provide a comment below. Bumping the employee portion of the SS tax back up will reduce the amount of money people have to spend, affecting the economy.    Ditto for an increase in the personal income tax.  Last year, the country flirted with going into default over the debt ceiling.  That scared the piss out of the markets. "RSUs are not ""essentially cash"". ""R"" in the RSU stands for restricted. These awards have strings attached, and as long as the strings are attached - you don't really own the money. As such, most banks do not include RSUs in the income considerations. Some do, especially if they have a specific agreement with your employer (check your HR/benefits coordinator). Specifically for mortgage loan,  where the underwriting is very strict, I'm not aware of banks that include RSUs as income without a specific agreement with the employer as a perk. For credit cards/car loans, where you just need to write a number, they would probably care less. Some banks (but not all) consider past performance, and would include bonuses (and maybe RSUs) if you can show several consecutive years of comparable bonuses." "The language in the starbucks accounts is highly ambiguous. But Starbucks has no treasury shares which helps work out what is going on.  Where it says ""respectively"" it is referring to the years 2014 and 2013 rather than ""issued and outstanding""...even though it doesn't read that way. Not easy to work out. The figures are:  Authorised 1200 2014 Issued 749.5 2014 Outstanding 749.5 2013 Issued 753.2 2013 Outstanding 753.2" The tax cost at election should be zero.  The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.  It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income.  §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it.  If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes.  That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade.  The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election.  The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income.  This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable.  It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election. Just from my own experience (I am not an accountant): In addition to counting as 'business income' (1040 line 12 [1]) your $3000 (or whatever) will be subject to ~15% self-employment tax, on Schedule SE.  This carries to your 1040 line ~57, which is after all your 'adjustments to income', exemptions, and deductions - so, those don't reduce it.  Half of the 15% is deductible on line ~27, if you have enough taxable income for it to matter; but, in any case, you will owe at least 1/2 of the 15%, on top of your regular income tax. Your husband could deduct this payment as a business expense on Schedule C; but, if (AIUI) he will have a loss already, he'll get no benefit from this in the current year.   If you do count this as income to you, it will be FICA income; so, it will be credited to your Social Security account. Things outside my experience that might bear looking into:  I suspect the IRS has criteria to determine whether spousal payments are legit, or just gaming the tax system.  Even if your husband can't 'use' the loss this year, he may be able to apply it in the future, when/if he has net business income. [1] NB: Any tax form line numbers are as of the last I looked - they may be off by one or two. One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend.   In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders.  Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight.   The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends. The picture talks is about assets on the Fed's balance sheet, which is very different than US government debt. Nor is there anything in the picture about corporate bottom lines, just US equities.   The implication of the picture is that the Fed's QE program is propping up US equity prices, and it is not a comment on the US debt or corporate earnings. You're reading things that simply aren't there.