I'm a big-time dog lover and have owned multiple dogs.

Owning a pet is optional -- a privilage. Simply put, if you cannot afford the costs of owning a pet, including vet care, then you should not own a pet. Anyone who has watched ther various "Animal Cops" TV shows knows all too well the cruelty which can happen if a pet owner cannot afford care.

It is simply wrong to expect taxpayers to indirectly subsidize my, or anyone elses, vet bills. Period.

Lemme guess, they're gonna pay for this by finding hundreds of millions of dollars in humane society fraud, waste, and abuse?

There's no feasible way to make money on this prospect. You'd have to spend the money on the care still, but you'd be able to deduct those expenses.

I agree, though, that it is a human benefit. Pets can be one of the best quality of life investments there is, and I consider pet ownership not quite a basic human right, but pretty close.

I don't necessarily think this is a good move at this point, just because we're so strapped right now. But maybe someday.

It's not a typo, I don't think. It's a colloquialism.

"idjot" i am not a grammar nazi but really thats one word you should never misspell.

1- it is a known fact that having a pet that is treated as a family member does lengthen life and leads to decrease medical cost by keeping you healthy. this is especially true for the elderly, the disabled and people with depression.

2- many people dont give their pets the full care they deserve by incentivizing pet care this would increase the number of times a person takes a pet to the vet and would make it easier to go when you feel something is wrong.

3- i have two kittens i rescued from the shelter and this would save us money.

I hope it passes.

I imagine that a farmer that uses a dog to help herd cattle could probably deduct vet bills and such as a business expense.

But then again I could be completely wrong.

i know a woman who traps strays & pays OUT OF POCKET to get them fixed - usually a half dozen per month or more! she does it for no other reason than she doesn't want to see more cats suffer & starve.

i guess she could be deducting the expense already as a "charitable donation"? that's kind of borderline though.

If I have rats in my house, do they qualify?

Honestly, though, I can't imagine that it would change my behavior much. This summer, one of my cats was life-threateningly sick in a way that could be quickly, easily, and thoroughly cured with a liberal application of money. I wrote the check. Didn't think twice. But for someone who couldn't afford the treatment or who believes you don't spend money on animals, I can't really imagine a tax break making a difference.

Good times...

What idjot thought this up.

We can't get important things done -take your pick depending on your political stripe- but we can give tax breaks for pets.

THEY'RE PETS DAMNIT!!!!!!!1

In some countries and cultures your pet is dinner.

Move the fuck along. Nothing to see hear. -Direct quote from nypd officer during arrest of someone-

As for people saying "this would be of better use going towards humans." well...it is going towards humans. It is going towards you. And what would you do with a little more $ in your pocket? Go out and buy some more stocks, us bonds, big screen tvs, etc.

But yeah...I just think people would abuse this. We'd end up with a lot of neglected animals.

Also, many states have VERY lax laws in what a "working/service/"helping" animal" is. IIRC, some states only require you prove your pet comforts you to get it a designation and license. That could lead to a lot of fraud/misuse.

Agreed. If you're going to give a tax credit, give it to working animals. You'd have to have some stipulations to prevent this from going to big commercial dairy farmers, etc.
A tax break on domestic cats and dogs is just going to encourage people to stupidly bite off more than they can chew.

@mythago: That's what i really don't get. Why not give a tax break ONLY to working animals? Farm dogs, seeing eye dogs, whatever. A lot of farm help animals get shoddy sporadic vet care.

In theory, sure... saving taxes on necessary medical care is fine. I wonder how people would feel about tax breaks for getting rats anti-seizure medication, or antibiotics.

It's particularly stupid in that it excludes 'working animals'. What, the farmer who has dogs and cats to keep down vermin is Mr. Moneybags and doesn't deserve a tax credit, but Mrs. Crazy O'Catlady does?