Pros, cons, and taxation of Per Diem compensation?
Hence new employer pays a part of the salary as per diem compensation   along with regular salary and says that per-diem compensation is   non-taxable. Per-diem is not taxable. But that is not what you're describing. It appears that either you or the prospective employer, misunderstood what per-diem is. As per US law is it legally allowed non taxable per diem compensation   to employees? Yes. What are the pros and cons of having per diem compensation? Per-diem is not compensation. It is not part of your salary. It is not part of your employment contract. If I have to report my salary to any one like banks, insurance   companies, do I need to include Per diem compensation or not? No, because it is not compensation. Back to the first item: Per-diem is paid to you during business trips when you're away from your (tax) home. It is not part of your compensation, and is only allowed for business trips. Contract work on site for any prolonged period of time (1 year or more, as a definitive rule, but can be less) is not a business trip. For that period of time your tax home becomes that location, so you're not away. You're home. You should discuss it with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), but it seems to me that either you misunderstood something, or your prospective employer is trying to evade taxes (both yours and his) by disguising part of your compensation as per-diem. It is very likely that when you get caught, the employer will just issue you 1099 on the amounts and leave you hanging. Beware if injured on the job they will not add per diem to your wages meaning you make less and your wc benefits will be less !!
"TLDR:  There are no to few monetary downsides. The process of settling an estate is called probate.  Creditors can make claims against the estate, and assets should stand to pay any debts.  If more debts are owed then assets, the beneficiaries are not held liable.  Final expenses are usually the first amount paid out in full.  So if the estate only contains enough assets to pay final expenses, then the creditors receive nothing.  Usually creditors are paid pro-rated if there is not enough to cover debts. For the record, the probate process is greatly simplified if one has a will.  Get a will if you don't have one. Life insurance is a bit different though.  It passes directly to the beneficiaries and depending on the state could be untouchable by creditors. The same thing could also happen with retirements accounts.   With 401K accounts, you could take some of it out, and pay tax on that.  You could also roll it into your own account. Property receives a really good benefit.  While it does pass through probate the cost basis of real estate is reestablished at the time of death.  So if grandpa bought a house for 30K in the 40's, and it is now worth 120K.  You inherit a 120K piece of property and when you sell you use 120K as your cost basis not 30K.   Any estate taxes are typically paid by the state, not technically the heirs.  If there is a 5% estate tax and they are to inherit 100K, they will only receive 95K.  They will not receive 100K then be expected to be paid 5K.  ""Electrically"" the same, but a large difference in responsibility. The biggest downside is if you have a will fight on your hands.  If someone disputes the validity of the will that can incur a lot of legal fees.  For small estates, it may not be worth the fight.   The next is if any assets do go through probate.  The process is lengthy and depending on the executor, they could reduce the size of the estate for charging for their time." 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. Since we are talking about retirement accounts, I wouldn't worry too much about what your income will be in the next 10 years or so. I'd recommend basing your contributions primarily on what your likely income/tax bracket at or near retirement age will be compared to 25% today. I don't think that optimizing for the next three years will make a significant difference, given the uncertainty of the tax code as well as your income in the future. However, it may make a difference to your planning whether you are going to grad school for an M.D. compared to an MSW, however, as to what your expected income/tax bracket will be. Here is an IRS citation to support my comment above - Exceptions. The 10% tax will not apply if distributions before age 59   ½ are made in any of the following circumstances: Made to a beneficiary (or to the estate of the participant) on or   after the death of the participant, Made because the participant has a qualifying disability, Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments   beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for   the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or   life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated   beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of   death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the   employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.), Made to a participant after separation from service if the separation   occurred during or after the calendar year in which the participant   reached age 55, Made to an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order   (QDRO), Made to a participant for medical care up to the amount allowable as a   medical expense deduction (determined without regard to whether the   participant itemizes deductions), Timely made to reduce excess contributions, Timely made to reduce excess employee or matching employer   contributions, Timely made to reduce excess elective deferrals, or Made because of an IRS levy on the plan. Made on account of certain disasters for which IRS relief has been   granted. "This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of ""profit"" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation." I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts anyway, so I wouldn't fault you for not contributing even if you weren't likely to develop a disability. Do you have disability insurance?  I hope so.  If you already have the disease then you may not be able to get it now if you don't have it already because they may not cover existing conditions.  If not, try to get it however you can. You may be able to withdraw the money without much problem if you can prove it's a permanent disability.  (Information here.) Do you have 401(k) matching from your employer?  If that match is vested in a reasonable period of time, then even with the penalties you'll end up ahead. Beyond that (this wasn't part of your question but I'm just trying to help) I'd think about what kind of work you can do after you can't work at your current job.  You have the luxury of an early warning, so plan for it. Also, check out National Industries for the Blind.  Our Lions Club sells some of the Skilcraft products (brooms) as fundraisers and they're quality products. The idea is that the premiums (or costs) associated with the plan are a business expense, you know that already.  The distinction here is that employees don't pay premiums, they elect to contribute. The company sponsors a plan, the employees then choose to accept less salary in order to participate in the employer's plan.  The idea is that you're foregoing income. Why is the employee not taxed on this cost?  One major reason is that the employee has no say in, and often no idea, what the gross costs are (some find out if they ever receive COBRA election paperwork). There are more benefits than strict healthcare that are Section 125 eligible.  The government has a vested interest in keeping the population healthy, and when the ERISA laws and Section 125 were written it was (and still is) a pretty low friction way to get health insurance out to more people.  At this point, taking away the tax break from the employees would be a huge government take away from most of the population.  Try to get a politician to take something away from taxpayers. Why doesn't the deduction exist in kind to people buying individual coverage?  Ask your legislators.  There are thousands of preferential tax treatment oddities, where some industry will get some sort of benefit or break.  I'm not sure what leads you to think there needs to be some supremely logical reason for this oddity to exit. Advantage: more money.  The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return.  Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts: "The bill proposed to ""Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up ""insourcing"" labor back into the U.S."" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below.   Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45.  However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians.   However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate.  There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted.  Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment).  The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house  For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example.  insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life." It's one of those things where it was meant, economically, for the first purpose (opportunity cost) but has been used by big corporations for the later since you have to have international divisions to really even make it work (to some degree it does on the state level; however, the tax breaks aren't really big enough for it to make sense since the Federal is the big one).   It's also a huge reason why big corps have such low effective domestic tax rates on big profits and why the government is debating about restructuring tax law to prevent most forms of FTP'ing (you'd pay taxes on Gross Income essentially. It gets MUCH more complicated than that but France effectively does this now).  Also, it's very much an accounting thing, and accountants tend not to have a big seat at the table. Hence, the reasoning behind stuff often get lost on upper mgmt (or they fire the accountant, etc.). That's a BIG part of why it often makes things worse even when when the principal makes sense economically... I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation. Perhaps business actually like this expenditure then? I guess it would be beneficial for them in that they, in a way, coerce employees from not leaving. Trying to find another job with equal insurance can be rather rough. Another way to look at it is that deductibles are intended as incentives or subsidies to particular industries (in this case the healthcare industry). Guaranteeing a decent standard of living and making sure everybody can meet the costs of “necessities” can be achieved much more easily by a low tax rate on the first XXX$ of income and/or generic welfare benefits rather than any measure focused on making healthcare, food or whatnot cheaper or free under certain conditions. Incidentally, many countries do have different forms of benefits or tax breaks for accommodation-related expenses. While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand,  Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither  covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible.  So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance  through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all. There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants.