Would you support a tax break for pet care?

In the midst of all the heated conversation about health-care reform, a Michigan Congressman is sponsoring a bill to give pet owners a tax break for pet care.  

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mi) has introduced H.R. 3501 to create a deduction of up to $3,500 on federal tax returns for the care of "qualified" pets, defined as "legally owned, domesticated, and live animals." Animals used for business purposes–say, a dog that helps round up sheep or a cat filmed in TV commercials–aren't covered. The bill says qualified care includes veterinary care, though it doesn't mention what else (pet sitting? chew toys?) would be included. There's no apparent provision for people who don't itemize and utilize the standard deduction instead. And there's no word on whether the pet needs a valid Social Security number. (Just kidding.)

A main finding to support the proposed deduction is that the human-animal bond "has been shown to have positive effects upon people's emotions and physical well-being," in the bill's words. The title of the bill is the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act. 

The bill doesn't mention the growing expense of medical care for pets, though ostensibly that's a major impetus for it. Consumer Reports Money Adviser recently discussed ways to save on pet expenses, regardless of whether this bill becomes law.

What do you think about such a tax break? Is it needed? Feel free to comment below.–Tobie Stanger

Comments

[Tony]

Personally, I think it's a stupid idea. But if it becomes law, I won't be turning it down.

[Giovanni]

I'm concerned that this bill could lead to a lot of pet adoptions by people who don't really want pets and wouldn't take care of them properly.

[john bernabeu]

absurd concept

[mwright]

No. I thought Congress had come up with all the stupidest ideas alrady, but I see they've overreached yet again.

[bingal]

I have a dog with Addison's Disease. She needs monthly shots, blood work and daily meds. The tax break would be greatly appreciated.

[H Lynnea]

Given the effect that pets have on quality of life, especially for those without other tax deductions (such as children), I don't think this idea is so strange, nor do I think it's a bad idea. Further, it may well encourage people to take *better* care of their pets, getting them regular check-ups and vaccinations.
All of that being said, I don't think this has much of a chance of passing into law, at least not in the current political climate.

[Tim]

Honestly, I think this is a great idea. I have two dogs and a cat. When I first adopted the cat last year she came home sick from the shelter, it took three vet visits to clear her issues up. Then I adopted the two dogs. One of them gets yeast ear infections easy, had a chipped tooth, and hurt her leg. This year alone I have spent nearly $2,000 in vet bills.

I don't mind the bills, the animals are more than worth it. But if I am getting medical treatment for a living animal, why shouldn't that be tax deductible? My healthcare is. Besides that, I think tax on vet services is wrong. The State/county I live in requires those services to be taxed.

[Steele]

Actually, I think it's a great idea for those of us who are Feral Colony Caretakers and at times have to personally pay for medical services when funds are low for things such as spay/neuter, rabies vaccination, emergency services, not to mention paying for the food out of our pockets. Why not?

And for those of you who say we, Feral Colony Caretakers, don't "own" these cats, in our county, if you feed the cat, then you own it according to the county whether its part of a feral colony or a lost/stray/abandoned domesticated cat.

[ken]

Not news. It's already here. A foster parent for an animal shelter can deduct from federal taxes (so I'm told) food, vet care, mileage for talking care of animals for a shelter. It's win win. Animals get a home with human contact. People get paid in deductions to keep a pet that they can return.

[Diane]

For the people who truly love their pets and care for them properly, I say one could allow $1,000/year (no more) for each pet.

However you run the risk of people grabbing up stray pets; cramming them into their homes and letting them go hungry and not cared for properly, just to get a tax deduction. Then the state would be spending money trying to locate those who abuse and neglect the pet. The cost for running a state or federally funded humane society that would find it impossible to monitor the health of the thousands of animals that are dumped off or born into squalor, would cost the government way too much money.

Overall, it would have to be a registered pet; a pet that was regularly getting its shots, and all those records should have to be part of the attachment on an income tax return to qualify for any deduction of any kind.

[Izabel]

Brilliant. Now people will be able to afford the high neutering expenses. Healthy animals are always a good thing. I know a lot of people who do a lot of good that will hopefully catch a break.

[F.C.Donnel]

I think it is a very good idea. I hope it passes.

[Glen]

Why not a tax break for jewelry, or chocolate, or any of the other gazillion luxuries that people don't really need but should enjoy if it's within their means.

Too many stories of people maxing themselves out and still wasting money on pets....http://debtbeat.com/2009/09/pet-debt.html

What people do with their money is one thing, asking for their taxpaying neighbors to help out in another.

[David]

I think it would be a great idea for pet owners to get a break on the taxes. Would also like to see that individuals who active in rescue would also get a tax break. Many are shetlering rescue animals in their homes.

[Bret]

Wow it would take a republican to suggest we need pet insurance coverage (oops sorry deductions) when we can't insure actual American humans.

We all *need* to support this! now!!!

[Bob's Blitz]

Way to go! Yes - dogs/cats and their care being deductible would be great.

[Greg]

I am disturbed by the support for this bill, and sickened by the "handout nation" that the U.S. is becoming. I have no problem paying my fair share of the tax load so that *we* can have an effective fire dept., so that *we* can have a responsive police dept., and so that *we* can maintain the roads to bring those services to us when necessary. But *you* chose to have a pet, one of the most dubious and intangible uses of your income I could name, and now you want *me* to pay for *your* personal choice. You're asking the rest of us to subsidize your goldfish? This country is lost . . .

[Aftercancer]

Let me see if I've got this right, we can't insure American PEOPLE, services to the poor and indigent are being cut but we're going to allow a tax break for pet care. Seriously? Really? We've clearly lost all sense of common sense.

[Greg Hurley]

I think it would be better for our society to lower taxes (or provide more services) for people with low income or the unemployed, rather than provide people like me, who have multiple dogs (by choice) and enough money to take care of them. A tax break would also give a good reason fro corporate run veterinary clinics, like VCA, to increase their prices even higher.

[Bill Curnow]

As a life-long, multiple-pet owner, this is nearly as idiotic as as the central government's take over of the auto and banking industries. In fact, it redefines asininity.

[Jamie]

I'm confused by all the people who say this will encourage people to go out and get strays, how would this benefit them? Unless they take the animals in for actual care, and have the receipts, how else would they be able to claim this? Also, if it's a deduction, they're only getting a small % back. If someone goes out and rescues a dog and spends $3500 getting that dog healthy, they'll most likely see a net savings of $875. I can't see people running out to pick up strays to "lose" $2500. I think this bill really only benefits the people who are already willing to take care of their pets. my wife and I spend way too much on our sick dog, and even just getting a % back would be great, but we'll still take care of our dog regardless, but there's some families that might be on the fence about putting their pet down, and this could be just enough to help them save it. Compared to all the other credits and deductions that are possible, this doesn't seem that far fetched.

[Emily]

I think this is great idea! I'm sick and tired of seeing everyone with kids get free hand-outs (tax credits, child birth money, etc...), while those of us who are trying to reduce our carbon footprint by living a CHILDFREE lifestyle get nothing but huge bills when our cats and dogs get sick.

[thinker]

Sort of like the standard deduction makes people have kids who don't really want them? Funny stuff.

[Guy]

For those that have problems with medical conditions for their pet. There's a very logical/humane way of dealing with that problems. Put the animal to sleep. Don't act as if you're doing people a favor by keeping YOUR pet alive. If you can't afford it, worst case, a couple bullets will cost you <$1. Tell you what, I'll cover the cost of bullets and the "procedure" for free if you can't afford the $1 and/or don't have a gun.

This bill is just more dumb government meddling and handing out favors to special interest groups.

[William Follen]

I have two pets and I think the idea is ridiculous. We are BROKE and we can't afford tax cuts of any sort.