Comments on: McCotter wants tax deduction for pet care expenses

By: lmktacwa

lmktacwa — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:43:57 +0000

there is a cap on the amount AND, if you don't use it, YOU LOSE IT… how RETARDED is that?

you fail.

I think a tax write off for pet care is awesome. Why not??? Especially for those who use animals as service animals…

By: lmktacwa

lmktacwa — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:43:57 +0000

there is a cap on the amount AND, if you don't use it, YOU LOSE IT… how RETARDED is that?

you fail.

I think a tax write off for pet care is awesome. Why not??? Especially for those who use animals as service animals…

By: lmktacwa

lmktacwa — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:43:57 +0000

there is a cap on the amount AND, if you don't use it, YOU LOSE IT… how RETARDED is that?

you fail.

I think a tax write off for pet care is awesome. Why not??? Especially for those who use animals as service animals…

By: FeHope

FeHope — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:49:42 +0000

The pet supplies and related industries are a very large industry that generates a lot of tax revenue and creates an enormous number of jobs. So, I really don't believe at all that pet owners are subsidized by non-pet owners.

Also, responsible owners clean up after their pets- they don't let waste hang around in the yard, leave it on the sidewalk, or in gutters.

Encouraging people to provide appropriate veterinary care through tax deductions does not mean that you have to be pro the current human health care reform. I am not sure why the article even linked the two issues with Rep. McCootter. People can be against the way the current health care reform as it is posed for a number of reasons. I worked for the government and continually marveled at how poorly everything runs. Eventually, I quit over the frustration. I would much rather work hard and be responsible for my own health care destiny than have any health care system by the US government. The current system is not by any means perfect, but sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. Would it be great if every single person had fantastic health care whenever they needed it? Of course. But, I don't think anyone is prepared to pay the large amount of taxes involved; the money would have to come from somewhere. Maybe national healthcare can work in other countries because their governments are not as completely dysfunctional, too. Many issues could be worked on to improve health care overall in the US that are different than what is currently being proposed as a solution.

By: sugarfoot73

sugarfoot73 — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:27:18 +0000

Acutally all of your health care can be tax deductible – your premiums through work are pre tax, you can have a pretax health care spending account to be deducted from your pay for whatever out of pocket expenses you may incur, up to whatever the current limit might be. And that doesn't require a schedule A – it's before it leaves your paycheck.

By: texasaggie

texasaggie — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:23:42 +0000

Not unless you have to spend over something like 7.5% of your income on health care. After that it kicks in and then only if you itemize on schedule A.

By: lightnessandjoy

lightnessandjoy — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:09:09 +0000

Addendum to previous comment. Of course should read “domestic pets and feral populations of domesticated animals”, which populations are the result of (irresponsible) pet ownership.

By: lightnessandjoy

lightnessandjoy — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:54:39 +0000

I have been a pet owner for most of my life, but this is an appalling suggestion. Non-pet owners already provide heavy subsidies to pet owners and domestic pets contribute significantly to environmental degradation. As a matter of fairness, if tax policy is going to be directed to domestic pets, pet owners should pay a tax surcharge, not receive yet another tax subsidy from non-pet owners.

The most obvious form of direct subsidy pet owners currently receive is the cost of waste disposal. Domestic pets produce an enormous amount of fecal matter on an annual basis and when properly disposed of those costs are shared by non-pet owners in local garbage fees. When not properly disposed of this fecal matter contributes to the degradation of natural water sources (see example below.) The production and distribution of food, clothing and various other pet products makes a significant contribution to the production of greenhouse gases and global warming. Finally natural animal populations are at great risk because of the predatory behavior of domestic animals. Many of our songbird populations are at risk, in large part because of killing by domestic pets. A recent estimate - approximately 1,000,000 songbirds are killed per day in the United States by domestic animals. (see example below)

Pets can be a wonderful thing, but it is time for pet owners to take responsibility for the social costs of pet ownership, not turn to their non-pet owning fellow citizens for yet another financial subsidy.

"Pet waste in your yard, on the sidewalk, or in the gutter can easily end up in the storm drain (and therefore, our waterways). Animal fecal matter in the water can cause a number of problems. Fecal matter contains nutrients, which cause weeds and algae to grow more rapidly than normal. This robs the water of oxygen needed to support fish and other aquatic life. Pet waste can also contain pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and parasitic worms which can transmit disease to humans. When high levels of bacteria are found in a body of water, fishing and shellfish harvesting are restricted because of the threat these pathogens pose for humans." http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/shellfish/pet_wast...

"But there is a downside. A 1992 study published in the American periodical Virginia Wildlife concluded that the state's one million domestic and feral cats kill up to 26 million birds a year. Fifty-five million are killed annually by eight million pet cats in Britain." http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?...

By: ynot4tony2

ynot4tony2 — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:32:42 +0000

Health care for humans is already tax deductible.

You fail.

By: deborahcohen

deborahcohen — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:27:05 +0000

What you said. I've limited myself to three pets maximum because, even though I love animals and could give a good home to one or two more, I cannot afford the additional vet bills they'd bring. Annual exams and lab tests alone are expensive. When you start getting into procedures, injuries and illnesses they're through the roof. And I'm not begrudging the hard working, highly educated, skilled and dedicated veterinarians out there their fees. I just can't afford to assume responsibility for more animals because I'd be unable to fulfill my responsibility to providing them proper health care without going into far more credit card debt than I can handle. A tax deduction for veterinary expenses is a welcome idea, that would help pets, pet owners and veterinarians.

I'm with you in advocating a single-payer system for the US too, and dismayed at its dismissal by most and demonization by opponents. The health insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbies are so powerful that our President and legislators will not give it a fair hearing, even though it's by far the least expensive, least complex, and most comprehensive reform we could do. They won't even have the C.B.O. score it. I believe that if our government were really putting the welfare of the American people first rather than the welfare of special interest groups, they would fight to pass reform that gave us true universal coverage with the most flexibility for the least cost, and that would include fighting all the lies that are spread about it.