![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-580579-100x100.png\")
Hmmm, with 2 cats and 30 snakes, this might not work out half bad for us...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@h3llc4t has a slow work day: That ratio looks strange. You need either hungrier cats or more lethal snakes to make it either a fair fight or complete victory.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-184636-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545239-100x100.png\")
@Ratty: I was thinking the same thing. People might be all over this for dogs and cats, but what about tax breaks for those of us with pets that are considered \"exotic\"? Many people find rats, snakes, lizards, etc. icky, but they are pets for lots of people and should fall under the same classification.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-306460-100x100.png\")
Whoa. No. Believe me, I'd love to deduct the $1200 in vet bills I accumulated this year after one of my cats fell ill, but come on. This is not good use of public funds.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-14720-100x100.png\")
@friendlynerd: It's not public funds if it's a deduction. I'm for deducting as much as possible that would otherwise get wasted by the government!
@friendlynerd: Considering the absurd amounts that vets charge (and the guilting when doggy MRIs aren't run at every turn), I shudder to think how much vets will capture of the \"free\" money that these deductions represent.
I'm not saying I'm against it (luvs my pets) but I'm unsure, especially of the unintended consequences.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1485-100x100.png\")
why just animals? i have other living things that i care for in my house. I have lawn care treatments and expenses for maintaining my trees and bushes. Also, the vegetables growing in my garden need care and pesticides. Can I get a tax break for those expenses too?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@snazz: Yeah! I have about 50 plants, and they're contributing oxygen to our atmosphere. Way more useful than my cat, who only contributes poop.
@JennQPublic: Call me when yours leave the headless bodies of trophies on the foot of your bed.
It's like living through a miniature version of The Godfather. With Tom Hagen sitting by your pillow licking himself, purring proudly.
@mythago: You're so right. And she always leaves them in threes... So when you come home and find one hairball, you have to start the scavenger hunt for the other two.
Good times...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4676-100x100.png\")
I'm torn here as I love people with my name and pets but think that this money would be better suited toward human beings.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-917643-100x100.png\")
Tax Cat approves.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-65988-100x100.png\")
The Bush administration proposed a universal pet health care plan back in 2002. NPR covered it at the time.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
I don't know how I feel about this but \"domesticated\" is a pretty vague stipulation. Tigers obviously aren't domesticated in any sense but some people have fennec foxes which can also constitute as wild animals and the owners aren't part of any wildlife rehab group. So where does the line get drawn? Is the classification only animals which may be generally accepted as capable of being domesticated? A golden retriever may still bite out of instinct but a puma will too. Is it because we haven't spend hundreds of years domesticating puma that golden retrievers are allowed and pumas aren't? Or is it that pumas can't ultimately be domesticated and obviously should not be pets?
@pecan 3.14159265: Farm animals are covered under normal business ledgers. Circus, the same. Non-profits' animals are likewise, although differently covered.
Only domestic pets aren't, is the logic.
I'm unsure about this. My heart says yes, but my head wonders if this will need to even further cost inflation from vets. As though they need any more help.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
I'd love this, as I am an animal lover, but I think it would do more harm than good. You'd end up with many people just getting pets to have them as deductions, and people would mistreat them, abuse them, etc.
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.
@Saboth: The proposal isn't to make it so you can claim pets as dependents or anything. Just to make actual pet care expenses deductible.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125319-100x100.png\")
The only way this even seems remotely reasonable is if it comes with a 'must be spayed or neutered' clause. And even then it seems iffy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
@Jacquilynne: see, now i'd support a tax deduction for having an animal spayed or neutered - even if it's not your pet - but not this.
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.
HELL NAW!!!!
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-
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-170263-100x100.png\")
\"idjot\" i am not a grammar nazi but really thats one word you should never misspell.
@Ronin-Democrat: You're not going to get a lot of high fives here with that attitude (and lack of structured thoughts).
I have two middle-aged cats, so I'm trying very hard to come up with an excuse to support this. All I've got, so far, is that maybe if it cost a little less, people who are lax about veterinary care and vaccinations might be less so.
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.
I'd love to get a break from my taxes, but the feds are bankrupt enough.
Let's see. The deficit is running at over a trillion dollars. Medicare is low on funds. Medicaid is low on funds. FHA may need a bailout. Now what should we do about this? I know, let's create another tax break.
If I have rats in my house, do they qualify?
I love my dog and have spent significant money, but c'mon, tax breaks? Dumb.
this is AWESOME!!! i think this is long overdue. if we are talking about something that does a ton of things at once this is it!!!
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-196743-100x100.png\")
Aw, screw the tax break. Just roll pet healthcare into the national health plan.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-659687-100x100.png\")
As a pet owner, it would be nice to see, but I'd rather have that money go towards health care reform. FOR HUMANS!
As a pet owner, no, NO, heck NO!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-109236-100x100.png\")
Are you serious? Hell no; pets are elective.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
Another pet owner who thinks this is an awful idea.
Lemme guess, they're gonna pay for this by finding hundreds of millions of dollars in humane society fraud, waste, and abuse?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-59101-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-321187-100x100.png\")
I love my pets, but seriously, no.
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?
@mythago: But livestock - or any business input - is already covered by a wealth of business deductions, tax incentives and financing. We spend some ungodly amount of tax dollars for farms, etc.
This is something completely different.
@mythago:
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.
@mythago: Since much of the care of a Seeing Eye dog is paid for by a non-profit(The Seeing Eye, in Morristown, NJ), there really isn't much in the way of taxes to cut. When I was helping to raise a pup with my Ex, the Seeing Eye covered all the vet costs, and we just covered food.
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.
@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.