cdrumm4448 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) but I would like to hear what people think of the proposed amendment to the internal revenue code to offer a tax credit of up to $3500 for owning a pet. Do you support it or not, and why. I'm just curious as to where most people stand on the issue. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3501: Edited October 18, 2009 by cdrumm4448 HR 3051 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) Wow, I'll go rescue another if this goes through and you can get double. Ditto on if you get another credit for more children. I'd love to be able to adopt a few... Carrie:-) Edited October 18, 2009 by NayfiesMama Link didn't work for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) Is this for real? Unbelievable. What is considered a pet? A hamster? A hermit crab? A dog? A horse? What about sea monkeys? Oooh, can I count butterfly larva or an ant farm? I have run away ants in my bathroom. If I consider them pets will the government pay for the baits (it's kinda like food)? If you can't afford to own a pet, don't get one. I don't want to start a debate either but I do not believe the government should be wasting it's time on stuff like this. Edited October 18, 2009 by Daisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 All I get is a blank window. Do you have another link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdytat:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html Search for bill number 3501. Edited October 18, 2009 by cdrumm4448 It's the first one, HR 3501. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 :001_rolleyes: about sums up my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I don't believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 If I can get 7000 for my cats, yippee. That means I can buy more, apply for credit and make a profit. Count me in. Hey, I dont think we have rec. any stimulus money yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amber in SJ Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I can't open the link either, but I think this is a terrible idea. I think there will be people who adopt pets to get the credit and then not take care of them. I think the tax credit is too large and would be too much of a temptation. If they are trying to encourage responsible pet ownership then I could possibly see a smaller tax credit as a one time thing if you rescue a pet and have it spayed or neutered. People should adopt a pet because they want one and can care for one; not because they need a write off. FWIW I am a pet owner with enough pets that this would make an impact on our taxes, and I still think it is a bad idea. Maybe it is explained better in the article that I can't see. Amber in Sj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I'm for anything that helps people keep pets. And tax deductions are nice :-) And I love the name of the amendment: HAPPY ! qualified pet is defined : 'legally owned, domesticated, live animal' the text comes up for me: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3501: The ASPCA is for it, fwiw. https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2605 Won't affect me here in Cda either way unfortunately..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdytat:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html| Won't get out of committee. Geez, we need less deductions etc. Our tax code is too complex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommyof4ks Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Really??? I own a dog, but I don't think this is a good idea. If someone cannot afford a pet, then don't get one and relocate ones that are no longer affordable. Silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 This bill was introduced by Michigan Republican Mr. McCotter (Chairman, House Republican Policy Committee) this summer. The bill: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following: (1) According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63 percent of United States households own a pet. (2) The Human-Animal Bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people's emotional and physical well-being. SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR PET CARE EXPENSES. (a) In General- Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new section: `SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES. `(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer. `(b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500. `© Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified pet care expenses' means amounts paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet other than any expense in connection with the acquisition of the qualified pet. `(d) Qualified Pet- For purposes of this section-- `(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet' means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal. `(2) EXCEPTIONS- Such term does not include any animal-- `(A) used for research or owned or utilized in conjunction with a trade or business, or `(B) with respect to which the taxpayer has claimed a deduction under section 162 or 213 in any of the preceding 3 taxable years.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the last item and inserting the following new items: `Sec. 224. Pet care expenses. `Sec. 225. Cross reference.'. © Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009. So he wants the 63% of Americans who own pets to be able to deduct Vet bills and "pet care expenses" UP TO $3500 per tax payer. I doubt this will pass, and my opinion? I think it is insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I can't imagine this passing! The implications are mind-boggling. Crazy:tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermom Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I don't think any such thing could possibly pass, and I think it would be ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty ethel rackham Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I think it is ludicrous. I can't think of a good reason to do this and plenty of reasons not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 It's not a credit. It's a deduction up to $3500. You'd be able to deduct up to $3500 (I'm assuming you need to hold onto all your receipts to document it) for pet care (vet bills, etc.). So if you spend $500 on your pet in a year, you would save, what, $100 on your taxes, depending on your rate. And it hasn't passed yet. I'm against it. If someone owns a pet, they're accepting the financial responsibility for it. I don't think I owe someone else a pet. Wendi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Oh... better idea.... I wanna claim my kids as "pets" :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) Awww snap! I own 26 chickens, 1 dog, 2 cats, 3 pigs, and a Gecko. I am all for that ammendment! ROFL! And my dog is a total mess medically. Heck, I probably spend $3500 a year on his allergy shots and such. That said, I will take it if it is offered, but I do think it is silly. Pets are optional for families...and quite a lot different from children. My husband and I didn't create our dog from our love for one another. I didn't carry my dog for nine months in my stomach. If I want to sell my dog, I can. If I want to give my dog away, I can. If my dog gets sick, I can choose to have him put down. The last 3 wouldn't work so well with my kids.:tongue_smilie: Edited October 19, 2009 by Tree House Academy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I have five cats, one dog and two fish, unfortunately I am opposed to our current tax system so I wouldn't be in favor of making it more complex. When I figured our taxes this year, I figured that we owed $2500 so we filed for an extension. My hubby just recently took everything to the tax accountant and we ended up getting back $1500. While trying to figure out the difference, I found out that we got a credit for providing shelter for a displaced midwestern individual. :confused: It just so happens that we have someone from WI living in our home but we certainly didn't report this to the tax man as we had no idea that there was a tax credit for it. I have no idea why there would be a credit for such a thing or how they figured out to give us the credit. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 If I can get 7000 for my cats, yippee. That means I can buy more, apply for credit and make a profit. Count me in. Hey, I dont think we have rec. any stimulus money yet. Yeah, a tax credit we could actually use! However I think it's insane. Many people who love their pets have a hard time affording all the necessary care. The lure of a tax credit seems a little iffy. I know when I worked for the vet some people couldn't afford certain procedures, I doubt having the ability to deduct it at the end of the year would change much. I'd much rather get behind a tax credit for education. Wouldn't it be nice to deduct homeschooling expenses, clubs, and sports? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLynnTX Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 The amendment to the Internal Revenue Code I'd support, is one where it would be eliminated completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denisemomof4 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I absolutely do NOT support it. If it were true, however, I'd be able to buy a vacation home with the money. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie in OR Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I can't open the link either, but I think this is a terrible idea. I think there will be people who adopt pets to get the credit and then not take care of them. I think the tax credit is too large and would be too much of a temptation. If they are trying to encourage responsible pet ownership then I could possibly see a smaller tax credit as a one time thing if you rescue a pet and have it spayed or neutered. People should adopt a pet because they want one and can care for one; not because they need a write off. FWIW I am a pet owner with enough pets that this would make an impact on our taxes, and I still think it is a bad idea. Maybe it is explained better in the article that I can't see. Amber in Sj Well, first :confused:. Don't they have enough on their plate??? But then, what she said. I am a life-long, card-carrying member of those who rescue pets and I would be concerned that people would just start adopting them for the credit but not take care of them. Or abandon them again. Bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LauraGB Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Oh... better idea.... I wanna claim my kids as "pets" :-) That's exactly what I thought when I read it. I have had a beautiful dog (ie family member) with serious vet bills, and I think this bill is absolutely ridiculous. I doubt it will make it. Although, our local Humane Society ( a kill facility) recently just had a $5 cat day, so maybe... :mad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Well, first :confused:. Don't they have enough on their plate??? But then, what she said. I am a life-long, card-carrying member of those who rescue pets and I would be concerned that people would just start adopting them for the credit but not take care of them. Or abandon them again. Bad idea. But it's a deduction and not a credit so then it really wouldn't yield much. You'd still have to spend the $ on the expenses & then you apply for a deduction which would presumably lower your taxes payable but not by a huge amount.....I can't see someone getting a pet, spending 3500 on vet care, just so they can claim it & save a couple hundred on their taxes. It also specifically says that the purchase price for an animal doesn't count. & if it was people trying to make a quick buck off this I'm guessing they'd be buying a mill or petstore animal, not going through rescue. I'm one of those rescue types too; I think a good rescue will have sufficient screening to prevent most deadbeat owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsMe Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Nothing from the government is free. You will be taxed on this, if not on the federal level, on the local level. Second, every Tom, Dick and Harry will get an animal just to have this credit, then discard the animal. Stupidist credit I've ever seen. Talk about grasping at straws. Ahhhh....maybe tails. Ridiculous if you ask me. Let's have a tax credit that really does something for the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 but I would like to hear what people think of the proposed amendment to the internal revenue code to offer a tax credit of up to $3500 for owning a pet. Do you support it or not, and why. I'm just curious as to where most people stand on the issue. I don't support it, nor do I support tax credits for children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 It's NOT a credit. A deduction is VERY different. First you have to spend the money... and you're NOT getting it all back as deduction, anyway. Sounds like just a new way to encourage people to take better care of their pets (bring them to the vet when they need to go etc. knowing that they'll be able to deduct a portion of the bill). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LND1218 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 My thoughts: Interesting. It won't pass. Someone has to pay for it. Huh I have 5 pets - that could be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsabelC Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 My first reaction was WHAT?!? But think about it, for many people their pets are like their children. We get tax breaks for our children. Why not a pet? Given that the US has approximately 15 million human children living in poverty, I would like to see this addressed before any money is expended on pets, deserving of care though they are. (Even though it is only a deduction, it would still result in the population paying less tax overall.) As far as it being an incentive to care for pets properly, I think this should be enforced, not financially encouraged. If you can't afford a pet, don't have one. If you can afford a pet and don't look after it properly, you should be penalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchycons Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Crazy but, anything that takes money out of the government's hands and into the people's hands is a good thing... HOWEVER... tax cuts can only occur if government spending reduces proportionally and in the case of deficits even more so. In other words, we need to reduce government spending first then add tax cuts. The best way is reducing our empire and stopping our overseas imperialism with unconstitutional, undeclared, perpetual, unjust wars in Iraq and Afganistan and potentially spilling into Iran and Pakistan. We have 800 bases in 130 countries and spend 1 trillion dollars overseas. If we shrink the empire we could shrink taxes and expand freedom. Then more people could actaully afford a pet (as well as health care insurance). Sorry, I know you didn't want to get into this, I couldn't resist it's always top of mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Crazy but, anything that takes money out of the government's hands and into the people's hands is a good thing... HOWEVER... tax cuts can only occur if government spending reduces proportionally and in the case of deficits even more so. In other words, we need to reduce government spending first then add tax cuts. The best way is reducing our empire and stopping our overseas imperialism with unconstitutional, undeclared, perpetual, unjust wars in Iraq and Afganistan and potentially spilling into Iran and Pakistan. We have 800 bases in 130 countries and spend 1 trillion dollars overseas. If we shrink the empire we could shrink taxes and expand freedom. Then more people could actaully afford a pet (as well as health care insurance). Sorry, I know you didn't want to get into this, I couldn't resist it's always top of mind. This wouldn't take money out of the government's hands. The government's money IS the people's money! They would be taking my money (since dh and I DO pay income taxes) and giving it to someone else for their pet care expenses, even if they DON'T pay taxes themselves. (40% of Americans don't pay income tax.) Wendi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 They would be taking my money (since dh and I DO pay income taxes) and giving it to someone else for their pet care expenses, even if they DON'T pay taxes themselves. (40% of Americans don't pay income tax.) Wendi Isn't the above a description of what happens with a tax *credit* ? My understanding of a deduction is different: it is money deducted from what one person would pay on their *own* taxes. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineFarmMom Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Awesome!! In a few months we'll have 100 chickens for 4-h. If we could work this all out to get the cash before we slaughter them, I'm in!!! ;) That could almost cover the $$ our family has wasted on other nonsensical govt.-inflicted programs...almost! I may go up to the shelter and grab us a few other pets to make the most of this thing. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdeveson Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I'm against it. If someone owns a pet, they're accepting the financial responsibility for it. I don't think I owe someone else a pet. You don't owe them a kid either, so by your logic they shouldn't have deductions for children either. :) I doubt this will pass. If it does, but a decent health care package with a public option is not passed it's going to say a lot of things about this country, and none of it is going to be good. Sheesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BakersDozen Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Sounds like just a new way to encourage people to take better care of their pets (bring them to the vet when they need to go etc. knowing that they'll be able to deduct a portion of the bill). I don't feel that responsibility needs to be encouraged financially. People make choices (to have pets/dc/house) and they should be ready for the financial consequences of those choices. It's not anyone's job to help others take care of their personal possessions (including dc although I hardly think of dc as "possessions") and I find such actions by the gov't (if indeed this is true) enabling and ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Ludicrous! No wonder they can't get anything worth while done up over there. They are too busy WASTING our tax dollars spending time on junk like this. Absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reya Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Assuming this is true.... I'm a little torn. My first reaction was WHAT?!? But think about it, for many people their pets are like their children. We get tax breaks for our children. Why not a pet? But basically I still think it is ridiculous. Because children are good for the economy and prevent that little thing called "demographic collapse" while pets are an expense, plain and simple. What nonsense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Hmmm... who knew veterinarians had a strong lobby group? My question would be this: Would pet medical expenses have to pass the 7% of income threshhold that people medical expenses have to pass in order to be deductible? If not, that hardly seems fair. ;) Anyway, this is another ridiculous bill meant to get publicity for some politician. Happens all the time. When I used to prepare income taxes, people always asked if they could deduct their pets. Actually, people asked if they could deduct all sorts of things. Most people don't understand the standard deduction or how the income tax works in general. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Isn't the above a description of what happens with a tax *credit* ? My understanding of a deduction is different: it is money deducted from what one person would pay on their *own* taxes. Right? I guess I am assuming that when the government offers a new deduction, they're not going to cut the government budget to pay for it. They're raising taxes somewhere else. Wendi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayle in Guatemala Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 but I would like to hear what people think of the proposed amendment to the internal revenue code to offer a tax credit of up to $3500 for owning a pet. Do you support it or not, and why. I'm just curious as to where most people stand on the issue. FINALLY! Rescuing those 2 dogs and that cat will pay off.:001_huh: I don't know what to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnieB Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Would our Tarantula (Vladd) count? It's older than the children, heck, DH had it before he had me, lol. Great pet...fascinating to watch when it's actually doing something, quiet, no mess, no fuss, eats once a month (crickets). Every couple years sheds it's skin and we get to examine it close up without the threat of being impaled. Therefore, educational. Where do I collect my $3,500? Oh, and how about fish? We had a tank full but they kept dying and I got tired of trying to figure out why so we have an empty dry tank right now, but I'd gladly work on the problem more if I could get $3,500 for each.....I think we typically have a dozen and then they have babies, half of which live. So is it how many pets on April 15? Wonder how you time the birth of fish? :lol: Sheesh....silliness aside.....instead of pets, how about giving us a little more tax break for raising all these very expensive children? My DH is working from home today and he said this may be the government way to stop the population growth....if having a pet gets you more of a tax break eventually than having children, we'd have less kids to have to build schools for..........hmmmmmmm much more subtle than China. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardnesd Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 position that they cannot have children. u-uhm, they have small dogs and are very neat. they do treat their pets like kids and they are a huge voting block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 position that they cannot have children. u-uhm, they have small dogs and are very neat. they do treat their pets like kids and they are a huge voting block. Yeah...ummm...I don't know about that. Most of the families I know who have children ALSO have pets (sometimes "for" the children). But I *do* know a few people like the ones you describe: their children are out of the house and so they dress the dog/cat, cook for it, and even (ack!) feed it at the table. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Maybe we should contact the bills sponsor, Republican Congressperson Thaddeus McCotter, of Michigan and let him know what we think of his proposed legislation? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayle in Guatemala Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Maybe we should contact the bills sponsor, Republican Congressperson Thaddeus McCotter, of Michigan and let him know what we think of his proposed legislation? Bill I agree. There just has to be an end somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbalgirl Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 If it is true, it is ridiculous and speaks volumes of our country today.:glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnieB Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Maybe we should contact the bills sponsor, Republican Congressperson Thaddeus McCotter, of Michigan and let him know what we think of his proposed legislation? Bill Gosh, I don't know....my mother always told me if you can't say something nice..................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.