Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"At a time when Congress is dealing with reforming health care and saving jobs, a Michigan congressman is proposing the HAPPY Act. An acronym for "Humanity and Pets Partnered Through The Years," pet owners could deduct up to $3,500 in expenses, only $150 less than parents deduct for children. The only thing not included is the cost to buy or adopt the animal."
What do you think? On one hand, I don't want anymore government "schemes" but on the other, for years thousands of my tax dollars have been going to educate other peoples kids simply because they decided to have them.
As someone with 7 cats, 3 dogs and no kids, all I can say is, it's about time!!! Yippie Maybe now I can use the EITC.
Just kidding, pets are like kids in one regard, if you can't afford to raise them, don't have them. There should not be deductions for either, you're passing the cost of raising them onto someone else. If you're going to have either, accept some personal freekin' responsibility.
Figures your bias mind just refuse to research before spewing stupidity.
Its the Republican INSANITY!
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-Mich.], has introduced legislation to create a tax deduction for pet owners’ expenses related to their pets. According to the pet industry trade magazine, Pet Product News, McCotter, a Livonia Republican, introduced the legislation July 31 in conjunction with a Pet Product News survey on the industry.
The legislation is being supported by the lobbying arm of the pet industry, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC).
According to the PPN story, the proposed legislation will amend the IRS code to allow pet owners to deduct up to $3,500 in pet related expenses, including veterinary care. [Emphasis added.]
Wow... so U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-Mich.] is offering socialist government handouts on behalf of the "pet industry" lobby?
"Obviously we need to try to restore the image of the Republican Party; this quote-unquote 'branding' is more a message thing. In the end, you can call yourself whatever you want, but your deeds have to match your words. We need ideas." (Washington Post, June 1, 2007) - wiki
"At a time when Congress is dealing with reforming health care and saving jobs, a Michigan congressman is proposing the HAPPY Act. An acronym for "Humanity and Pets Partnered Through The Years," pet owners could deduct up to $3,500 in expenses, only $150 less than parents deduct for children. The only thing not included is the cost to buy or adopt the animal."
What do you think? On one hand, I don't want anymore government "schemes" but on the other, for years thousands of my tax dollars have been going to educate other peoples kids simply because they decided to have them.
I find it hard to believe that Michigan is struggling so badly with genius propositions like these!
If people get credit for choosing to have kids then those who choose to have pets instead of kids should get credit.
People don't get a credit for choosing to have kids. What they get is a credit for having a DEPENDANT. Whether you have children or not, any person who is upon you DEPENDANT can be claimed on your taxes for the credit. Want the credit, but don't have kids? Open your house to someone in need, pay for their living expenses, including food, clothing, travel, etc, and claim them as a DEPENDANT. Just be sure that, like most dependant children, they aren't making enough money that they need to file a tax return of their own, and aren't being claimed as a DEPENDANT by someone else.
I agree.
I never though that having kids was particularly a good thing to do, but have always had a pet.
I, like many here, have spent a small fortune paying taxes to pay for the schooling of other people's children. I have contributed to taxes that resulted in lower taxes for those with kids.
I think pet owners deserve a break, too. Pets contribute to our well-being and cause less trouble than kids, as a whole.
A dog barking at night can alert people of a potential problem, frequently caused by someone's kid.
We certainly should have laws that protect pets more than they currently do.
Foster a rescue dog....permanently. I have one I'll never formally adopt. Damn straight I'll be deducting his expenses. The rescue is relieved of financial stress, and I have a mouth to deduct. Win/win.
At what point does one become responsable for their life?
If you make the choice to take in a pet and I have I then become responsable for that pet. I did not have to make the choice to take in the pet but I did it because its the right thing to do not to get a tax credit or thiink someone else should pay for it?
This junk has GOT To stop.
This keeps up we might as well move to a 3rd world country now and get the land cheap
I am an animal lover. I adore my dogs but are you crazy?
No, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
At what point does one become responsable for their life?
If you make the choice to take in a pet and I have I then become responsable for that pet. I did not have to make the choice to take in the pet but I did it because its the right thing to do not to get a tax credit or thiink someone else should pay for it?
This junk has GOT To stop.
This keeps up we might as well move to a 3rd world country now and get the land cheap
Then you should feel the same way about the child tax credit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.