How does AMT/state taxes work for stock options in California?
Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)?   Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before   calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is   $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she   get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can   I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that   much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she   take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can   find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike   price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell   your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.
It is a very complex question to answer and it really depends. However, here are some points to consider and verify with your accountant or tax expert.  First, if you exercise now, the downside is that you may be subject to Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) based on the theoretical gain on the stock (current price minus your strike price) when you file your tax return.  The other obvious downside is that if the company goes nowhere, you are stuck with the stock and potentially lose money.  The benefit is that the clock starts ticking for long-term capital gains so if you sell after 1 year from the exercise date (or your company gets sold) then the gain would be taxed as long-term capital gain which is taxed at a lower rate. If your company were to get sold, the gains are not necessarily taxed as ordinary income.  If it is a cash transaction then most likely (unless you have exercised and held the stock for over a year).  However, if it is a stock sale, then you may end up getting stock of the company that acquires your company.  In that situation, the tax event would be when you sell the new shares vs. the time of company sale. Finally, whether to exercise or not also depends on how you feel about the prospects of the company.  If you think they will be sold or of more value down the road then exercising makes sense.  If you are not sure then you could hedge your bets by only exercising a portion of it. You should definitely consult with a financial advisor or a tax consultant regarding these matters. "And specifically regarding prices of housing, what factors drive prices in that regard? I mean, the houses are roughly the same... but almost 3 times as expensive. Rent, like so many things, is tied to supply and demand. On the demand side, rent is tied to income. People tend to buy as much house as they can afford, given that mortgage interest is deductible and public schools, financed through property tax, performs better in valuable neighborhoods. Raise the minimum wage and economists expect rents to go up accordingly. When employers and pensions offer COLA adjustments, it feeds into a price loop. During the past ten years, there was also some ""animal spirits"" / irrational behavior present; people feared that if they didn't buy now, home prices would outpace their growth in income. So even though it didn't make sense at the time, they bought because it would make even less sense later (if you assume prices only go up). There's also the whole California has nicer weather angle to explain why people move to SF or LA. On the supply side, it's all about housing stock. In your old town, you could find vacant lots or farmland in less than 5 minute's drive from anywhere. There's far less room for growth in say, the SF Bay area or NYC. There's also building codes that restrict the growth in housing stock. I'm told Boulder, CO is one such place. You would think that high prices would discourage people from moving or working there, but between the university and the defense contractors triangle, they seem to have an iron grip on the market. (Have you ever seen a cartoon where a character gets a huge bill at a restaurant, and their eyes shoot out of their eye sockets and they faint? Yeah... that's how I felt looking at some of the places around here...) Remember, restaurants have to cover the same rent problem you do. And they have higher minimum wages, and taxes, etc. Moreover, food has to be imported from miles away to feed the city, likely even from out of state. In California, there's also food regulations that in effect raise the prices. If people are footing those higher bills, I wouldn't be surprised if they're racking up debt in the process, and dodging the collectors calling about their Lexus, or taking out home equity loans to cover their lifestyle." An article came out today saying Amazon asked those four for a level 2 proposal. I don't know how accurate it is or not.  I'd also assume somewhere in California would work too but there are a few negatives for that area like taxes.  That being said they already have a large presence in all of these places. DC would make sense for the Eastern tri state area and the federal government.  Nexus to customers is another biggie but they're mostly covered there. Then you have appetite and capacity for new tech for drones, space and driverless vehicles among others. Employees and customers in this context are interchangeable. Their top customers would be their best employees and vice versa.   Amazon will need to continue to shift the paradigm if they want to maintain momentum.  They're not really limited in where else they can build so as I think about it HQ2 needs to be somewhere that has something nowhere else has. It's been a couple years since I worked on Transfer Pricing project.   It makes sense though. I'd imagine that's why Texas and Florida are doing, tax wise, so much better than California and other high tax states. The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF. Congratulations!  You own a (very small) slice of Apple. As a stockholder, you have a vote on important decisions that the company makes.  Each year Apple has a stockholder meeting in Cupertino that you are invited to.  If you are unable to attend and vote, you can vote by proxy, which simply means that you register your vote before the meeting.  You just missed this year's meeting, which was held on February 26, 2016.  They elected people to the board of directors, chose an accounting firm, and voted on some other proposals.  Votes are based on the number of shares you own; since you only own one share, your vote is very small compared to some of the other stockholders. Besides voting, you are entitled to receive profit from the company, if the company chooses to pay this out in the form of dividends.  Apple's dividend for the last several quarters has been $0.52 per share, which means that you will likely receive 4 small checks from Apple each year. The value of the share of stock that you have changes daily.  Today, it is worth about $100.  You can sell this stock whenever you like; however, since you have a paper certificate, in order to sell this stock on the stock market, you would need to give your certificate to a stock broker before they can sell it for you. The broker will charge a fee to sell it for you.  Apple has a website for stockholders at investor.apple.com with some more information about owning Apple stock.  One of the things you'll find here is information on how to update your contact information, which you will want to do if you move, so that Apple can continue to send you your proxy materials and dividend checks. No, you're not missing anything. RSUs are pretty simple when it comes to taxes. They are taxed as compensation at fair market value when they vest, basically equivalent to the company giving you a cash bonus and then using it to buy company stock. The fair market value at vesting then becomes your cost basis. Assuming the value has increased since vesting, selling the shares that vested at least a year ago (to qualify for lower long-term capital gains tax rates) with the highest cost basis with result in the minimum taxes. Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.