Bill would give tax breaks for pet owners

[The Straight Story]

Bill would give tax breaks for pet owners

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (UPI) -- A bill before Congress with the backing of a veteran Hollywood actor would offer a per-person tax break
of up to $3,500 for pet care expenses.

The bill, which was brought to U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., by "Goonies" and "Diehard" actor Robert Davi, is aimed at promoting animal ownership during the economic recession, ABC News reported Tuesday.

"What a pro-active way to be able to help the economy and change the culture in this country around animals," Davi said of the HAPPY Act, which stands for Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years.

"This money goes back into the economy, and it encourages people to understand the social responsibilities we have toward animals," Davi said.

The bill has quickly gained support from animal welfare groups.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/13/Bill-would-give-tax-breaks-for-pet-owners/UPI-53721255472274/

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Oh, for fuck's sake. We're already subsidizing people with children -

why must we subsidize people who insist on having pets?

Pure fucking bullshit.

[litlady]

37. I will never have kids and will always have pets.

I would have no problem getting a tax break when so many others get one for children or other decisions. :)

[kentauros]

41. Thank you!

I'm the same way. My cat is my child, yet, because I'm single and have no children, no that pet doesn't "count" as part of your family. Nevermind I spent $8000 last year keeping him alive, going into debt to do so. No, people are starving! We must save the children!!! Okay, so long as one of those children includes my eight-year-old furry kid, too :)

[distantearlywarning]

59. +1 to this post!

:-)

[Zoeisright]

75. +2000

Responsible pet owners provide a valuable service to communities.

[PVnRT]

58. You could write off your pet shoggoth, though

Seriously, those things cost a fucking fortune to keep fed. And the trails of ooze, the chittering...you deserve a tax break.

[Rabrrrrrr]

67. And don't forget the constant lawsuits.

Oh, God, the lawsuits.

[ddeclue]

2. Goody I have 30 fish and 5 cats so does that mean I get 122,500 in tax breaks?

:rofl:

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. No shit - my fish cost me, what, maybe $100 a year in electricity and food and filters?

Shit, I'll spend $100 to get a $3,500 windfall.

Why not?

I'd be fucking stupid not to do so.

[dysfunctional press]

19. it said "up to $3500"...

receipts would no doubt be required.

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. It's still a fucking ludicrous and ignorant idea

[dysfunctional press]

47. there aren't too many tax breaks that everyone agrees with. your OPINION is noted.

:hi:

[slampoet]

42. I'm getting an Ant farm and Beehives then.

[ddeclue]

48. You win the DU!

:rofl:

[msongs]

3. thought repubs were in favor of deficit reduction lol nt

[tonysam]

4. You can bet your ass the proposed break is for people who

can afford to itemize their taxes, which is only about 30 percent of taxpayers.

[flvegan]

5. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Anything that helps.

[AnnieBW]

7. Can I claim my cats as dependents?

I've been wanting to do that for years!

[FreeState]

8. GOP all for giving breaks to you for pets but gays get nadda - disgusting n/t

[izquierdista]

25. Buy gay pets

I'd rather have a gay couple than a noisy dog that barks all night.

[maglatinavi]

32. izquierdista

You are a wuss!:banghead:

[vadawg]

44. rofl, i have this vision of these two gay guys sitting on your floor waiting for their dinner

just the way you worded that cracks me up with the mental imagery

[AllentownJake]

9. People are living in tent cities

and these fuckers are worried about dogs and cats.

[Maraya1969]

51. Take a walk through your local animal shelter and you might change your mind

It's heartbreaking and so many now have had to give up their pets because they cannot afford the expenses. And let me tell you, BASIC expenses can run well over $100 a month just for heart worm and flea and tick prevention if you have a few of them.

[rd_kent]

55. Then they should have pets.

Its like having kids, if you cannot afford them, DONT HAVE THEM.

[Maraya1969]

73. Then they will all just be euthanized or spend years in cages. You ok with that?

[rd_kent]

77. Sorry, meant to say they should NOT have pets.

[lunatica]

72. Many of those people have pets in the tents with them

I see plenty of homeless people with pets. Mostly dogs, but also cats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. So taht means I will be able to claim the kids (three parrots)

as dependents?

Look I could use the money... and yes the culture has to change... that said...

Are there a few more important priorities than my "kids?"

Though granted, that subsidize them very well thank you. Cover their vet, and also boarding... but for fucks sake, there are a few more critical things right now than my feathered kids. Now when the economy booms, then lets have that conversation...

[InvisibleTouch]

11. I love it! Hope it passes.

My dogs always eat. I don't, always. A bit of tax help would be welcome.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Ditto

[Kerrytravelers]

12. Since when does Robert Davi care about social responsibilities?

Look at the company he keeps:

According to Wikipedia:
Davi also narrated several film montages that aired during the 2008 Republican National Convention. Davi also spoke at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C.

And this interview
Robert Davi: Michael Moore Harms America

"Celebrities" Against Al Franken What a crowd to be a part of. :eyes:

[Johonny]

14. how would the IRS verify you had a pet?

I mean who wouldn't claim this for the tax break. Before they required SS for dependents I know a lot of horribly dishonest people that made up dependents. Worse these people might pick up a cat from the pound for a week then dump it come Jan 1st. Seems like something ripe for abuse.

[Mari333]

17. receipts and records. and I like the idea....

I think its a good idea. so many non human animals are being abandoned because people cannot afford them. the shelters are full.
I have a pound puppy, 3 cats who were abandoned I take care of, and a parrot who I adopted.
They cost money, and to get a tax break for all the medical care and food expenses would be welcomed by me.

[dysfunctional press]

22. with 3 cats and a black lab, $3500/yr. is close to what we spend on them.

fredda likes to play hard- she broke each of her front duclaws on seperate occasions this summer.

[Johonny]

34. on the form they aren't going to ask for receipts

I imagine most people will risk it. Plus how many people keep these records? Receipts only count if you get audited and most people would risk it. Worse the amount of money the IRS needs to get from an audit to make the audit "worth" it is probably more than many people will claim.

[dysfunctional press]

49. do you have a link to that aspect of it...?

the article in the op has absolutely no info on what would be on the tax form.

[dysfunctional press]

20. most counties require pets to be registered...even if many people usually don't.

this could be a good way to gain compliance.

and since it says "up to $3500"- i would imagine that it would be based on verifiable expenses- not whether or not someone had a pet on december 31st.

[Johonny]

35. good idea

not sure how searchable the database is, but I like the idea. Need probably to pass a one year from register date to claim to stop people from December pick ups and January dumps. But I like that direction of thinking. It's enough of a bluff to scare off people. Although I highly doubt the IRS wants to audit people for a 800 tax credit for a pet scam. There's too much expense to little reward from this. Not sure how many places require this and if it's for dogs and cats in places.

[meow2u3]

70. How would I apply for Social Security numbers for my cats?

:rofl:

[OHdem10]

15. I Love Pets as much as the next person, but with people going

hungry and we cannot afford decent Health Care Bill, we now
---this blows my mind, I am sorry,

[Demobrat]

16. This is discrimination against apartment dwellers

who are not ALLOWED to have pets. We already subsidize homeowners who get to write off their housing payments, not to mention people who CHOOSE to have kids. And now we're supposed to pay for their pets too? Screw that.

[tammywammy]

26. There are apartments that allow pets

I lived in quite a few complexes, only one didn't allow pets. Also, I don't get to write off my mortgage payment, it's for interest on the loan, which isn't the whole payment.

[Demobrat]

31. If ANY don't allow pets it's discrimination against the people who live there.

Nobody's forced to have a pet. If you can't afford it don't have one.

[dysfunctional press]

50. nobody is forced to live in a building that doesn't allow pets, either.

it's not discrimination when people CAN choose.

[litlady]

38. LOL I lived much of my life in an apartment and with pets. nt

[pipi_k]

46. Wait a minute, couldn't you sneak in

some of these...




:7

[mopinko]

18. is this some sort of a trap? fall for this, and never hear the end of it.

give me a break. children starving and they want to subsidize pets? come on. we'll be branded as loonie forever if we so much as nibble on this.

[PinkOwl]

21. Cat food is expensive

As well as veterinary care and litter. I agree with this move.

[Brickbat]

23. No thanks.

[Better Today]

24. At first glance I said to myself, WTF!, but then I think of all the pets being abandoned

due to the economy, and how many aren't being adopted because of fears about the future of the economy. If this would help that, then a $3500 deduction from taxable income (not $3500 off your taxes, just your taxable income, so if your tax rate is 20% you'd get a $700 realized benefit) per person on a tax form, perhaps that's okay.

However, I would like to see a sunset date put on it, so it isn't a forever thing but a recession and we care about pets thing.

[jgraz]

28. This is a great point

At first, I was against this tax break (even though I'd probably use all of it), but the number of abandoned pets is overwhelming rescues. Maybe this will help reduce the problem.

[tonysam]

29. The problem is few people will take advantage of it

because in all probability this credit will be only for those who itemize their taxes, which is only about 30 percent of the population, and typically the better off economically.

Unless all pet-owning taxpayers can take advantage of it, it's a bunch of bullshit.

[Better Today]

30. OH, crap, good point, I didn't follow it through did I? Okay, bad tax.

[U4ikLefty]

40. Great point. n/t

[rvablue]

45. +1! n/t

[undeterred]

27. I once had a $6K year with my last dog...

He was cured of cancer and had two knee operations in 12 months. A tax break would have been nice.

[grytpype]

33. This would be great if it passes...

[JoeyT]

36. Boy this would be awesome.

If this passes it sure will be great.
There are two ways this could possibly go.

#1: It requires receipts showing that you spent more than X on your pets that year and requires itemization on your taxes. In which case you're going to be subsidizing hay for some rich kid's pony while you try your level best to feed yourself and your pets.

#2: All it will require is some proof you have a pet. A vet bill, a receipt of purchase, etc. In that case you're going to see the number of abandoned animals multiplied many times over in the next few years as people buy the cheapest puppy mill dog they can find and either can't be bothered to take care of an animal they got for a tax credit so it starves or dies of dehydration or just turn it loose somewhere and figure they'll get another next year. After all, you can get a puppy mill dog for about 50 bucks, take it to the vet to get it's toenails clipped for about the same, then maybe get up to 3500 dollars off on your taxes. Given how badly animals are already treated and the rate they're abandoned at, do you put this past people at all?

Seriously, what the hell makes you think Republicans are going to do anything to promote animal welfare? This is either a well disguised tax cut for people that don't need it or an extremely well thought out attempt to get Democrats to push behind a bill so the feral dog packs roaming the streets can later be blamed on us.

[Contrary1]

39. I would welcome it...

Right now, I feed and take care of 9 cats. All but one were strays or ferals. The ferals get to the vet for spay/neuter and shots if I can catch them. Tends to get expensive at times.

[Greyhound]

52. Great idea, and from a Republik no less. n/t

[rd_kent]

53. One should ONLY get a tax break if you PROVE you are a GOOD pet owner....

I dont think there should be ANY tax break at all, but if there is going to be one, you must prove you are a good and caring owner.

[Rabrrrrrr]

54. This is going to REALLY help out the puppy mill owners

[rd_kent]

56. Puppy mills are where the problems START!

[Rabrrrrrr]

61. Yes, and now that we're covering their expenses, they can create even more puppies!

Isn't that wonderful!

[wickerwoman]

62. And pet hoarders.

Why get your cat or dog spayed or neutered when you can look forward to eight or nine new little deductions each year?

Never mind the quality of life of a huge colony of breeding animals.

We already have a problem with people not thinking far enough ahead about how to place unwanted animals or how to deal with more animals than they can afford.

You don't reduce the population of unwanted shelter animals by incentivizing breeding.

[Rabrrrrrr]

64. Damn right! Yet anoher reason this is a fucking ludicrous and unethical idea.

[laughingliberal]

74. The post did say it was up to $3500 per person

I take that to mean an individual could deduct up to that much in a year, not that an individual could deduct that much per pet

[eShirl]

57. How about Pet Food Stamps while they're at it.

fur kids are kids too

[Rabrrrrrr]

63. Absolutely! Because we all have a God-given right to make someone else pay for our hobbies/desires.

I hope some day that I can benefit from one of these fucking ludicrous tax-back ideas.

[meow2u3]

71. That would be a great idea

I wonder how much pet food stamps would be alloted for each household--or if the pets would have to be spayed or neutered.

[surrealAmerican]

60. As a pet owner, I don't like the idea.

It could encourage irresponsible pet ownership.

If it were targeted more specifically toward veterinary care, that would be better, because it would help pet owners take better care of their pets.

[wickerwoman]

65. I agree.

Take this money and create a program reimbursing vets for free spraying and neutering and for selected procedures to pets of people in economic distress. That will do a lot more to promote responsible ownership than giving a tax break which encourages upper middle class pet owners to breed their animals.

[Ruby the Liberal]

69. +1

The first thing I thought of was people who no longer itemize. How quickly would Fido get dumped if he was only around for the tax break.

This could make matters much, much worse.

[HillWilliam]

66. Reading the comments, I wish some folks wouldn't flip out

before considering the situation that some of us are in. My partner who is disabled has a service dog upon which he depends. I can't marry him, nor do I get any tax breaks for his care. Nor do I get any breaks or assistance for caring for his assistant (our eldest "daughter"). Now that she's aging, I'm having to train up a replacement for her because it's not very many years (two or three) until she totally retires. Dogs who can do what she can don't grow on trees. One of her particular talents can't be trained -- the dog either volunteers it from love or never exhibits it. Fortunately for us, the puppy has exhibited the same ability. The two rescues in between for whom I had hopes, just didn't have the talent. They're sweet and good watchers, but they can't alert and communicate in the same fashion.

Hell yes, a tax break of ANY sort would be more than welcome. I'm the only one bringing home a paycheck and it's stretched mighty, mighty thin.

There's always more than one aspect. I wish people wouldn't start immediately bitching about something without understanding that there's more than one reason for it to exist.

[Rabrrrrrr]

68. For helper animals, I'm all for it. Hell, make it more! But for mere pets? No fucking way.

[anonymous171]

76. Leave it to celebrities to waste everyone's time with frivolous shit like this

Seriously, people are losing their jobs and being kicked out onto the street and all this fucker can think about is fucking animals? Fuck him. :grr: