It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP's McCotter Pushes Pet Care Tax Breaks

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Story Here


Rep. Thaddeus McCotter tells Newsmax about a bill he is sponsoring that would provide Americans with a tax deduction for the cost of caring for a pet in these difficult economic times.

The Michigan Republican also declared that that healthcare reform plan being promoted by President Barack Obama is "so repugnant" that even some Democrats can't support it.

Rep. McCotter, who represents a Detroit-area district, introduced the HAPPY (Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years) Act on July 31. It would allow taxpayers to take a deduction of up to $3,500 a year for "qualified pet care expenses," including veterinary care. It is now in committee.


More info at the story here

Sorry, but owning a pet is a luxury. Even though pet care gets awfully expensive, it should NOT be a tax break. I can see it in the future .... cats, dogs, horses are covered but those with fish and hamsters don't get breaks. Riots in the parking lots outside of PetSmart happen ... Turtles and snakes take to the streets in equal opportunity marches backed by the ACLU ....

Well .. okay ... maybe not all that
... but I still come down on the side of 'no tax break' for pet owners. (And yes we are pet owners, we have a dog and four fish. And yes, the dogs' vet bills add up)

Presented for your discussion ....




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Just took the dogs to the vet this past week, cost nearly $700.

So it is fine to be a baby machine and make welfare babies and get those tax breaks. Have the tax payers pay to feed and cloth your little welfare babies, but care for the animals you get nothing?

You guys want to talk about some health care reform I need some health care insurance for the dogs. They are costing me more than the 2 kids I have.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Doom and Gloom]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
I need some health care insurance for the dogs.

VPI and Purina have health care insurance for dogs. We don't have it, but I know they have insurance for man's best friend.


If people want to buy pet health insurance ... great!
Just don't give tax breaks for owning pets.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ok, then do away with the child tax breaks. No one forces people to procreate. Do away with the damn welfare too, because it is hard enough to raise and provide for my own.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
First, what is difficult to identify here is what would qualify as a “pet” legally, according to tax law.

Second, one can already write-off relocation of a pet and some expenses.

Third, I’m all for it. I spend my money at least 1000x more efficient than the US government.

The less they have the less they can continue to waste and waste and waste.

Why not?



mg



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ok, then do away with the child tax breaks. No one forces people to procreate. Do away with the damn welfare too, because it is hard enough to raise and provide for my own.


I agree if owning a pet is a luxury so is having a child.

My tax dollars shouldn't go to people who copulate irresponsibly and don't know how to use birth control or worse yet have children just to milk the system as much as possible.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucentenigma
I agree if owning a pet is a luxury so is having a child.

My tax dollars shouldn't go to people who copulate irresponsibly and don't know how to use birth control or worse yet have children just to milk the system as much as possible.


You are correct to a great measure.

I know of persons that treat their pets, livestock etc. better than children. There is a lot of irony in this proposal.

But then again, people can legally sell pets and livestock, not children…perhaps the cost to the system and ‘milking’ needs to be addressed for the “common good” in a debate forum for a proposal such as this. How about that….children vs. pets/livestock tax law?

Still I’d rather have the write-off on pets and spend my money rather than hand it over to a wasteful bunch of idiots.

mg



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Ya'll saying that kids are a luxury have a good point.
I kinda agree. BUT at the same time children are supposed to be the future of America and so 'investing' in them by giving parents extra money via a tax break is supposed to help America.

Supposed to.

The thought is that the parents spend the tax break money on the kids.

Of course that doesn't really happen like it's supposed to ...



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucentenigma
My tax dollars shouldn't go to people who copulate irresponsibly and don't know how to use birth control or worse yet have children just to milk the system as much as possible.



Yup. People should remember this so should something like this pass they dont get all up in arms about all the scumbags hoarding dozens of animals in some shack out back abused and malnourished just so they can claim a larger refund.

As if puppy mills needed more of an incentive to operate?

You cant have a tax break for pets and not open up a whole world of more useless legislation and between the margins crime. In the end the animals will be the ones to pay the price.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join