Can I deduct work equipment I am not required to purchase by my employer?
No, you cannot. You can only deduct expenses that the employer required from you, are used solely for the employer's (not your!) benefit, you were not reimbursed for them and they're above the 2% AGI threshold. And that - only if you're itemizing your deductions. "Old question, but in the comments of the accepted answer, I believe Nate Eldredge is correct and littleadv is incorrect. Nate copied the actual quote from the IRS guidelines, quoted below: An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense doesn't have to be required to be considered necessary. Noise cancelling headphones certainly count as ""appropriate and helpful to your business"" in the software industry, especially with the trend of open office layouts. And because of the ubiquitous distractions inherent in the aforementioned office space, noise cancelling headphones are becoming quite ""common and accepted"" for use by developers.  I'd be more hesitant about the keyboard and monitor, as presumably the employer is providing those already. As using your own could be said to just be a personal preference over those provided, the argument that providing your own version is ""appropriate and helpful"" is a little more shaky.  I am not a tax lawyer, so don't come after me if you get audited, but my guess from reading the actual IRS guidelines is noise cancelling headphones: probably, keyboard and monitor: maybe."
I think you might be missing something important here. If you are running a business, then any expenses that your business incurs are deductible.  Yes, Kickstarter would report the full amount. The IRS requires them to report everything that you raised. However, the Kickstarter and Amazon fees would be a business expense. Your cost on the backer rewards are deductible business expenses as well. Legal fees, accounting fees: deductible.  Money that you spend on equipment may not be deductible all in one year; you may have to depreciate it over multiple years. This is where the accountant that you are paying accounting fees to will come in handy.  People who do an iOS app Kickstarter campaign for $5000 might have a few things going on that you don't: "Re: Specifically, am I right in that everything I put on these is deducted from tax, or are there other rules? and  Am I correctly understanding this as ""anything above £3,600 per year will not be deducted from your tax""? Neither interpretation seems quite right… Unless what you mean is this: The contributions (to a pension, or to the share-save scheme) are deducted from your pay before it is taxed. That's how it works for employer-run pension schemes. In other words, you are paying the gross amount you earn into the pension, not the amount after tax. It's a tax-efficient way to save, because: compared to other forms of saving: (The bit about the £3,600: you can ignore this assuming you're earning more than £3,600 a year.) What happens to the pension if you decide to move back to France or another country? In some cases you can transfer tax free. Worst case, you'd pay some tax on the transfer but not more than 25%. [See here for the current rules: https://www.gov.uk/transferring-your-pension/transferring-to-an-overseas-pension-scheme. Re: the share scheme, if by 'salary exchange' you mean salary sacrifice (where your gross pay is officially reduced by that amount e.g. £150 a month), that's even more tax-efficient, because it saves you paying the National Insurance contribution too (approx 9% of the pay packet). Conclusion: Saving into pension and company share save schemes is supremely tax-efficient and, provided you're OK with your money being locked away until you're 57 (pension) or tied up in company shares, it's understandably many people's priority to make use of these schemes before considering other forms of saving where you pay into them from your salary after tax. Now, about this: I am trying to understand how much I should put into it Should I put money into these, or should look for another way to save (how will this work out if I go back to France or another country)? Nobody here can advise you what to do since individuals' goals and circumstances are different and we don't know enough of the picture. That said: FWIW, I'll tell you what I might do based solely on what you've told us in the question… First, I'd definitely contribute 6% to the company pension. This gets you the full employer match. That's free money (plus, remember the tax relief = more free money). If you're 27, a total of 12% salary into a pension a year is a decent rate to start saving for retirement. Actually, 14% would be generally advisable, and maybe more still – it's generally a case of 'the more the better' especially while young, as you have time for growth and you don't know what later priorities might change / financial needs might arise. Nevertheless, you said you might move overseas. So in your position I would then:" "These policies are usually called dread disease policies or critical illness insurance, and they normally aren't a good deal. Furthermore, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, such policies may become less common or disappear entirely. These policies aren't a great deal because of the effects of adverse selection and asymmetric information, two closely related concepts in the economics of insurance. When you purchase an insurance policy, the insurance company charges you a premium based on your average risk level or the average risk level of your risk pool, e.g. you and your fellow employees, if you get insurance through your employer. For health insurance, this average risk level is the average probability that you'll incur healthcare costs. The insurer's actuaries calculate this probability from numerous factors, like your age, sex, current health, socioeconomic status, etc. Asymmetric information exists when you know more about this probability than the insurance company does. For example, you may look like a relatively low-risk individual on paper, but little does the insurance company know, BASE jumping is one of your hobbies. Because you know about your hobby and the insurance company doesn't, you secretly know that your risk of incurring healthcare expenses is much higher than the insurance company expects. If the insurance company knew this, they would like to charge you a much higher premium, if they could. However, they can't, because a) they don't know about your hobby, and b) the premium may be decided for the entire group/risk pool, so they can't increase it simply because a few individuals in the group have higher risk levels. Adverse selection occurs when individuals with higher risk levels are more likely to buy insurance. You may decide that because of your dangerous hobby, you do want to take advantage of your employer's healthcare plan. Unfortunately for the insurance company, they can't adjust their price accordingly. Adverse selection is a major factor in insurance markets, so I didn't go into much detail here (too much detail is probably off-topic anyway). I can point you towards more resources on the topic if you're interested.  However, the situation is different when you purchase a dread disease policy.  By expressing interest in such a specific policy, e.g. a cancer insurance policy, you signal to the insurance company that you feel you have a higher risk of facing that disease. In your case, you're signaling to the insurance company that your family probably has a history of cancer or that you have habits that make you more susceptible to it, and your premiums will be higher to compensate the insurance company for bearing this additional risk. Since the insurance company already has a rough estimate of your chances of developing that illness, they may already know that you have a higher chance of facing it. However, when you express interest in a disease-specific policy, this signals the existence of asymmetric information (your family history or other habits), and the insurer assumes you know something they don't that elevates your risk level of that specific disease. Since these policies are optional policies often sold as riders to existing policies, the insurance company has more flexibility in pricing them. They can charge you a higher premium because you've signaled to the insurer that you have a significantly above-average risk of contracting a specific disease*. Also, the insurer can do a much better job of estimating the expected costs of insuring you since they need only focus on data surrounding one disease. The policy will be priced accordingly, i.e. in such a way that isn't necessarily beneficial to you. Furthermore, most dread disease policies aren't guaranteed renewable, which means that even if you are willing to keep paying the premiums, the insurance company doesn't have to keep insuring you. As your risk of developing the specific disease grows, e.g. with age, it may pass the point where insuring you is no longer an acceptable risk. The company expects you to develop the illness with the next few renewal cycles, so they decide not to renew your policy. The end result? The insurance company has the premiums you've paid previously, but you no longer have coverage for that illness, and ex post, you've suffered a net loss with no reduction of risk for the foreseeable future.  Dread disease policies are changing under the Affordable Care Act. According to healthcare.gov Starting in 2014, ... all new health insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses, and plans purchased in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, must include a range of essential health benefits. The essential health benefits include quite a few areas of coverage; since this applies to policies offered on the state insurance exchanges and those offered outside of it, dread disease policies wouldn't seem to qualify. For more information, you can read the linked page on healthcare.gov or see Section 1302, subsection b), titled ""Essential Health Benefits Requirements"" in the law itself (p87). I imagine more details will be available on a state-by-state basis through 2014 and into 2015.  One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or ""specific disease"" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies. The ACA spells this out in Section 5000(f) (see p316, which states that ""excepted benefit policies"" are excluded and defines them using the definition in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). **The PSHA specifically includes ""Coverage only for a specified disease or illness"" in their definition of ""excepted benefit policies"" (see section 2791(b), paragraph 3A on p82, so it's probably a safe bet that such policies won't count towards the minimum. Also, as Rick pointed out in the comments, the Affordable Care Act also forbids lifetime limits on most insurance plans, so assuming you find an insurance policy with adequate coverage for the specific disease you're worried about, such a plan should cover the related expenses without a lifetime limit. Deductibles, annual limits, and other factors may complicate this somewhat.  In the section about lifetime limits (Sec. 2711, p2), the Affordable Care Act states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish ... lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.  However, the law states in the next paragraph that the preceding statement should not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits that are not essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law The section also contains similarly vague caveats about annual limits, so the actual details and limits may vary once individual states finalize their policies. The law is intentionally vague because the vast majority of the law's implementation is left up to individual states. Furthermore, certain parts of the law specify actions involving the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so these may require further codification in the future too. You should still read the fine print of any insurance policy you buy and evaluate it as you would any contract (see the next section).  Since a dread disease policy probably isn't a good idea, you'll probably want to evaluate the healthcare plans offered by your employer or individual plans offered in your area (if your employer doesn't offer coverage). I've tried to include the basic points offered in these articles to give you or future visitors some idea of where to start. These points may change once the Affordable Care Act is implemented, so I'll try to keep them as general as possible.  Services - Above and beyond the minimum essential requirements, what services does the plan offer? Are these services a good match for you and/or your family, or do they add unnecessary cost to the premium with little or no benefit? For example, my health insurance plan offers basic dental coverage with a small co-pay, so I don't need a separate dental plan, even though my employer offers one.  Choice - What doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. are preferred providers under your plan? Do you need a referral from your primary care doctor to see a specialist, or can you find one on your own? Are the preferred providers convenient for you? In my first year of college (about five years ago), my student health insurance only covered a few hospitals that were in the suburbs and somewhat difficult for me to reach. This is something to keep in mind, depending on where you live.  Costs - This is a major one, obviously. Deductibles, copays, maximum cost limits over a year or your lifetime, out-of-network costs, etc. are all variables to consider.  There are other factors, but since I don't have a family, other members of the site can provide more detailed information about what to look for in family policies.  In place of a dread disease policy, you're likely better off purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy, perhaps a catastrophic coverage policy with a high deductible that will kick in once you've exhausted your standard insurance policy. However, this may be a moot point since the passage of the Affordable Care Act may significantly reduce the availability of such policies anyway." "I got a BA in Econ from a mid-tier public school in CA, and I graduated near the trough of the great recession, so my experience may not represent what current and future graduates can expect. It took a couple of years of shit-jobs, but I eventually got into banking (a matter of who-you-know) and after almost 5 years I couldn't stand it anymore so I am starting my MS in Econ at an also mid-tier public CA school. I can't compare to CS, and my advice will differ from robolib's:  1. Never assume that jobs will we thrown at you, especially a job that you actually want, like, and will make a career. The job market is strong and you ought to be able to get an entry level analyst position if you can show you have strong econometrics. Many schools require you to do a research paper for your senior seminar (instead of a graduation exam) I recommend to choose a topic with good data available.  2. All the government jobs I've looked at required at least a Master's. That said, the ROI on a Phd is rarely worth it if you have to take on debt to do it. You MIGHT be able to get your foot in the door with a Bachelor's but you won't be able to progress up the job ladder. I suggest being a little more open-minded about potential employers, there are way more options when you consider consulting or business development for larger corporations.  3. Economics majors make the most out of the social scientists by far, last I checked it was 60-80k (depending on local market, obv.) but I imagine that trails CS majors significantly. You should be able to afford a decent standard of living in either field, so certainly consider more on the basis of what kind of work you get the most satisfaction from.  4. With an undergrad degree you will start in local government. You may then be able to jump to State and then Federal levels after 5-10 years experience, but still may find it difficult if you forgo the Master's. I have not personally worked as an ""economist"" but I do know you will spend a lot of time searching for/collecting data, writing or using statistical analysis programs to process it, and writing up your reports.  5. Go search ""analyst"" on Indeed.com and you'll find myriad positions in everything from finance, to marketing, to supply chain, etc. which ask for degrees in business, finance, ""or other related field (economics).""  In my opinion, the prestige of the university from which you graduate is secondary to the work you do.  Assuming you do a research paper, if it is kick-ass it won't matter much if you went to Harvard or not. Check your city/county jobs site for internship opportunities since no matter what, even getting an entry level job can be difficult if you've never had any job experience in the field (or related field).  Labor economics is big since there's a lot of good data and it is a hot topic. Personally, I'm focusing on urban economics, real estate, planning, and transportation. The beauty of Econ is that it is so broad you can almost do whatever you want. But the drawback is that it is so broad it can be tough to show employers that you possess the specific skills and knowledge that make you desirable.  Hope this helps!" To expand a little on what littleadv said, you can only deduct what something cost you. Even if you had done volunteer work for a charity as a sole prop you could only deduct your actual costs. If you paid an employee to do charity work or to learn something related to the business that would be deductible as a normal business expense.  Some common sense would show that if you could deduct something that didn't cost you anything (your time) you could deduct away all of your income and avoid paying taxes altogether. Back to your more nuanced question could 2 businesses you own bill each other for services? Yes, but you will still have to pay taxes for money earned under each of them. You will also need to be careful that the IRS does not construe the transactions as being done solely to lower your tax bill. "According to this discussion, there was a Tax Court ruling that likened deductibility for charitable giving by credit card to business expenses incurred by businesses operating under cash-basis accounting.  (The point is made by Larry Hess on that site.) Short answer: According to this argument, you can claim the deduction when the charge is incurred.  You don't have to wait until you pay it back.  (Again this is for cash basis.) Publication 538 states that ""under the cash method of accounting, you generally deduct business expenses in the tax year you pay them.""  I think the ruling above was meant to clarify when the expense is ""paid"".  In my totally unofficial opinion, I suppose this makes sense.  If I go to Office Depot to buy a box of envelopes, I walk out with the envelopes at the same time regardless of whether I paid cash or swiped a credit card.  I wouldn't walk out thinking: ""HA!  I haven't actually paid for these yet.""  If the shoplifting alarm went off at the door and I was asked if I had bought those, I'd say yes, right? If this doesn't convince you, you can always get professional tax advice." You can deduct this if the main purpose of the trip is to attend the seminar.  Travel expenses relating to the attendance at conferences, seminars and other work-related events are deductible to the extent that they relate to your income-producing activities. You will need to apportion your travel expenses where you undertake both work-related and private activities. Travel costs to and from the location of the work-related event will only be deductible where the primary purpose of the travel was to attend the event. Accommodation, food and other incidental costs must be apportioned between work-related and private activities taking into account the types of activities that you did on the day you incurred the cost. You might like to consider in advance what you would tell them if they questioned this - for instance you might say (if they are true): 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.