1. Home
Send to a Friend via Email

Discuss in my forum

Jenna Stregowski, RVT

Your Dog Could Be a Tax Write-Off

By September 26, 2009

Follow me on:

yorkie dog dollar sign money

Imagine if your pet care expenses were tax deductible. I would wager that most pet owners have thought about it before - I do every year. After all, we can deduct our own health care expenses and many of our purchases, so why not our pets? Soon, tax-deductible pets could become a reality if a proposed bill passes.

Enter H.R. 3501: the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Thaddeus McCotter. The proposed legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow taxpayers to deduct up to $3,500 per year for the expenses of legally owned pets. Best of all, it includes veterinary expenses.

According to the proposal, there are two major factors to justify the bill. First, the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey states that 63 percent of US households own a pet. In addition, they acknowledge the positive impact that the human-animal bond has upon people's well-being, both emotional and physical. If passed, the legislation would be effective beginning in the tax year 2010.

To me, this is utterly amazing and, quite frankly, a bit shocking. We all know the high cost of dog ownership and that every little bit helps. This bill could bring a whole new light to saving money on our pets' expenses. Do you want to show your support for this bill and help it get passed? With the help of the ASPCA, write to your U.S. representative and ask him or her to support and cosponsor the HAPPY Act.

Now we want to hear from you. What are your thoughts on this bill? Is there a downside, or is this simply a dream come true? Tell us what you think.

Photo by Martin Barraud/Getty Images


September 26, 2009 at 12:47 pm
(1) Annie says:

I think it is a great idea! I know for a fact that our dogs help people feel better emotionally and physically. Stress can cause diabetic glucose levels to rise, and our dogs help keep our child’s stress level down. After a long stressful day, playing with our dogs seem to lower my blood pressure and make me feel more relaxed. So, as I see it, pets are a useful part of our lives and their care should be tax deductable.

September 26, 2009 at 2:05 pm
(2) ilona says:

our pets are family. too often the high cost of care has pets dumped! this would help! i have probs w depression and high blood pressure and my pup helps and listens. she also is a much more user friendly security system……

September 26, 2009 at 3:18 pm
(3) Bill says:

I have two service dogs for mobility and the high cost of keeping them healthy in order for them to function as needed is huge, I can deduct a few things now but if it were to be more, that would be great.

September 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm
(4) becky hardy says:

I think this is and excellent idea. I love my “babies” and this would make their care easier on me.

September 26, 2009 at 8:55 pm
(5) jeannie says:

I’m all for tax deductions on our pets…they ARE family!! We have Vet bills and medications for our pets as well as food costs, doggy daycare and/or Pet nannies, just like with our children…I have three dogs all at various stages of life and they fill and complete my life as well as my children do…Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this new bill…jeannie

September 27, 2009 at 8:15 am
(6) Anne says:

It’s about time!. This is a great idea! One of my dogs, is on a very expensive medicine for Cushing’s Disease. If this bill could include pet medicines that would save a lot. $3,500 per year deduction would certainly cover that. Pets give us so much love.

September 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm
(7) Binkies Mom says:

This is an excellent idea not only for pet and service animal owners but to help save the needless euthanasia of pets every year because families cannot afford vet bills to properly care for their animals. Animals save countless human lives every year and a tax deduction would no doubt help to save many animals lives and reduce medical costs for owners suffering the loss of a beloved pet.

September 27, 2009 at 2:31 pm
(8) Louis says:

Are you people crazy?

September 27, 2009 at 3:03 pm
(9) Olga says:

I think it’s a great idea. My only concern is that people may start to get pets only for tax purposes. I hope that if this proposition passes my concerns don’t come to be true.

September 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm
(10) Nikkip says:

It’s about time something like this came along. I spend money each month for vet care, daycare, toys and food for my k-9 babies just like others do for their human babies. I have to pay extra each month for them just to live with me in my rent. People with human children do not. I also pay my taxes on my dogs that go towards paying for all of the human children of people that either can’t or won’t take care of them and then just have more. Sorry to rant, but people that think this is ridiculous need to be given a clue.

September 27, 2009 at 11:57 pm
(11) Aislinn says:

What a great idea. My dogs are a big part of me and my life. With out them I would not even get out of bed in the AM. They serve a great deal with out knowing it or asking any thing in return. Yeah, call me crazy… Crazy for dogs!!

September 28, 2009 at 10:22 am
(12) Miranda says:

I agree with the above comments that dogs should be a tax deduction. I think anything that contributes to our health and wellbeing should be deductible, including things like gym memberships. After all, it’s less costly than health care.

September 28, 2009 at 2:47 pm
(13) Monica says:

No, I don’t believe any of us are crazy Louis! I hope this does get passed, my dog has cancer and we have spent all we can spend to get his tumor and lymph nodes removed, we don’t have children and he is our baby. It’s money well spent but times are tough for all, and we have spent a lot of money. This would be wonderful for families who have pets as family members!! I’m not crazy, I just love my dog!! Don’t hate on us for that.

August 31, 2010 at 11:25 pm
(14) wayne miller says:

I think you missed the point. The craziness is not related to loving your pet or taking care of your pet. It is related to providing a tax break as though there is some compelling reason for the government to subsidize the ownership costs of a pet.

Why have any tax at all? Why not just get benefits?

We have to stop thinking that we deserve more breaks. Relative to the burden we otherwise impose on the younger generation – we should be sacrificing what we want so that we don’t leave the younger generation with unbearable debt.

September 28, 2009 at 3:39 pm
(15) Anne H. says:

While I sure like the concept, I’m not sure about the execution. Certainly only documented expenses would be allowed. Is it $3500 for one pet or all pets? If you file with your spouse, would that be $7000 if each of you has a pet? If you have 8 pets, would you have to break out which food/equipment was used by each one? divide by 8? And how would anyone tell if you really owned one or 8, since, unlike kids, they don’t have social security numbers, birth or death certificates? Not a great definition of “qualified pet”? What does “legally owned” mean?

Whoever wrote this bill is either not real knowledgeable or doesn’t really want it to go anywhere.

(Then, again, maybe it’s a new tactic by HSUS/PETA to document where all the pets are so they can seize them….)

September 28, 2009 at 5:52 pm
(16) Deb says:

It sounds real good, however, I have checked the political web sites as well as snopes.com and could find no information on this “possible” deduction.

September 28, 2009 at 6:57 pm
(17) dogs says:

Many thanks to all of you for the comments!

#15 Deb, if you visit the ‘HR 3501′ link above, it take you to the Library of Congress site and the text of the actual bill. Here’s that link again:

#14 Anne H, you make some good points. The language of the bill is vague (I suspect on purpose). If made into law, I am quite certain there will be more specifics. I think the $3500 is per taxpayer, regardless of the number of pets. Joint filing might allow two, but it remains to be seen. Of course you’d need to document the expenses, just like you would do if you were writing off business expenses. I expect that by “legally owned” it means you’ll need to prove that the pet is licensed in your name according to local laws if you were audited. It’s probably just to avoid abuse of the deduction.

#9 Olga, I thought of that, too (that people might just get pets for the sake of taxes). But in order to get the deduction, you still have to spend the money and be able to back up those expenses. In theory, that means they would have to actually take care of their pets. . . otherwise they gain nothing.

#8 Louis, if wanting to save money in tough economic times is crazy, then I guess we are. Really, this is not much different than deducting moving expenses, charitable donations or gambling losses (yes, you really can deduct gambling losses. . . surprisingly).

Thanks again, everyone, for your input!

~ Jenna, Dogs Guide

September 28, 2009 at 7:09 pm
(18) Kuuipo says:

Excellent idea!!!! Pet care costs are very legitimate expenses and should be a tax write off!!!!

September 29, 2009 at 11:50 pm
(19) Ted says:

Absolutely not!!! I have always owned 2 or 3 dogs and can afford them. They receive the best of care. We should not expect government to pay for every conceivable cost we incur. If you can’t afford a pet don’t get one. The government already pays for ever part of our life now. From cradle to grave. Do you really think there is such a thing as free money. Gov takes our money and waists 50%. Enough is enough.

October 1, 2009 at 1:05 am
(20) withgoddess says:

Oh how I wish it were happening in Canada! I have 5 cats 2 dogs…a rabbit and a bird-all rescues…all getting on in years except for one! I spend a fortune on vet bills as you can well imagine and I am not wealthy.

Sounds like a dream come true to me. If it were in my country I would be on the street corner collecting signatures for the good and wise Senator.

October 1, 2009 at 1:21 am
(21) Debbie says:

It sure would have my vote and my support! This would be wonderful.

October 1, 2009 at 4:59 am
(22) Phyllis says:

All bills should have receipts, but food I don’t believe should be on the list. It should be medical bills, starting with the spay/neuter first on the list to qualify for the deduction. This is not for backyard breeders of fad mixed breeds. This is for families, the elderly, the disabled, and the “homebound”.
Before anyone gets riled, please note I raise registered dogs. PUREBREDS, not fashion mutts with cute names like the ones that keep ending up dumped in my yard when they don’t sell. Yes we do have some sterilized family pets. All my dogs are Rat Terriers registered wirh the AKC FSS as foundation stock, and ALL , even the family dogs hunt to feed my family. They work for a living, even when we don’t have litters, which just for the info don’t happen until a list has been made pf buyers willing to wait. This is no “puppy mill” with 17 breeds. Just Ratters are on this farm, and there are 8 of them. So think the bill through. Yes they make us happy. I have 13 grandchildren and they love all our dogs. There can be NO room for “vague” in such a bill. The dishonest will make a shamble of it before it had been passed for a single tax season.

October 1, 2009 at 9:14 am
(23) JTH says:

I have a 16 1/2 year old rescue tri-colored Sheltie that is now retired after spending 15 years as a therapy dog. My husband calls her the “perfect dog”! However, it is required by the hospital and nursing homes where she worked that all shots be up to date, and she be healthy, etc. And that is an expense related to the volunteerism that we did.
We are about to retire and on a fixed income and have agreed that there will be no other animals in our household, because of the expense.
But I will miss the joy of therapy dog team work and the many rewards and miracle reactions we experienced in our work.

October 1, 2009 at 9:15 am
(24) Denise says:

I can’t believe that anyone thinks that having this write off is free money! Our nation in trillions of dollars in debt – thank you very much – but I pay for my dog myself. I love her dearly and she is a part of the family – but I don’t ask you to pay for my kids clothes – and I sure don’t want you to pay for their health care.

I adopted a kid who was almost 5 – we have to use public mental health care – call, leave a message and in 3-5 someone will call back. Then the request will be handled 3-5 business days after that. Basically – two weeks to get a med refilled.

October 1, 2009 at 11:02 am
(25) Pat says:

I think that to allow tax deductions for pet is a very positive thing, Pets serve as children to some that for a variety of reasons cannot have children are often time very positive for the elderly that live alone, and we are allowed tax deductions for numerous other things ie the earned income credit which often times gives refunds to those which are more than they paid in. Pets are an important part of our world.

October 1, 2009 at 11:08 am
(26) Linda says:

I am a 100% service-connected disabled Army veteran. My German shepherd Luke is not an “official” service dog. He’s justr a big guy rescued from a high-kill shelter by some bigf-hearted folks in San Francisco nearly five years ago. Luke is my ears at night after I’ve taken out my hearing aids in order to sleep. I am mobility impaired and he walks along side of my walker if I have to go somewhere that frightens me. Luke adores me and is my “velcro dog” and it’s hard to imagine life without him. Two days ago, Luke developed “bloat” through no one’s fault. Thankfully I was home when it happened and rushed him to the veterinarian’s office. Luke underwent emergency surgery and has been on a cardiac monitor for the past two days. I am beyond grateful that Luke survived. It cost my entire VA disability check and half a month’s pay at my job to save his life. I work full-time, but my service-connected disabilities severely reduce my earning potential. I will have much more month than money to pay mortgage and utilities for the next couple of months, but at least Luke will get to come home later today.

October 1, 2009 at 12:19 pm
(27) Mary F. says:

ABSOLUTELY! Our four-legged friend is our companion and treat him like a part of our family. We would love a tax deduction! If the government allows tax deductions for children, so should it be allowd for pets. For those who can’t afford pets, this would be a great incentive to rescue one from their local ASPCA! Our dog is a rescue from the local SPCA and he has been a wonderful companion an has lots of health issues; we still LOVE him very much.

October 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm
(28) Gail says:

Pets are definitely family members. Our adopted bunny and dog have been very therapuetic during some very difficult times in our family. There love is unconditional, they make you smile, and can sense when something is not right. They never refuse a snuggle or a chance to play. Pets are a wonderful addition to a family! Adopt one if you can.

October 1, 2009 at 7:34 pm
(29) Amber says:

I think it’s a good idea, in light of how many people are having to take their pets to the shelter, or are abandoning them in hopes that they’d be more likely to be found and adopted. I do think some people may adopt pets just to get the tax cut. Some people foster kids for the same sort of reasoning. I think IF the legislation is for medical costs, it’s great. Many people also are forced to choose whether to go broke or put a pet to sleep if faced with a pet’s emergency medical need when they can’t afford treatment. This could help in many ways, as long as the wording in the bill is very specific with enough accountability for pet owners.

October 1, 2009 at 11:34 pm
(30) L.D. says:

Ted has it right! You want to invite the big government to be even more intrusive in our lives? Be careful what you wish for! How about personal responsibilty for a change? What a concept!! I have 2 dogs that I dearly love, but they are my responsibility….not the government’s.

October 2, 2009 at 8:29 am
(31) Danny says:

This relates to Bill’s comment. Medically necessary animals can be currently deductible as medical expense. Although this bill would give you greater tax savings, please review these deductions with your accountant next year.

October 2, 2009 at 9:44 am
(32) Judith says:

I think this is a great idea. We own two dogs and it sure would help alot. Also, I think more people would be kind to their pets and take better care of them.

October 2, 2009 at 11:37 am
(33) Kimberley says:

I think this is a long time coming. I hope it passes. Not only are pets beneficial to humans in many ways, we are also beneficial to our pets well being. My husband was in hospital for 11 days recently. They had someone bringing dogs into the rooms to let patients pet them to help them feel better about being away from home. The hospital also allowed family to bring pets to an outside courtyard area (for pts who were walking). When my husband got home, our oldest dog would not let him out of her sight for days! She seemed to miss him very much and wasnt going to miss him again!

October 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm
(34) bj says:

Yes, my dog costs plenty to keep, but I feel that she is my expense. I wanted her…I have to pay for her.

October 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm
(35) sailorfej says:

My first thought on this was “Great!!”

I have 4 dogs, two of whom are seniors, while one of the younger ones has needed to two knee surgeries (TPLO). So far I am averaging a little $6000 a year in vet bills.

Not to mention, while I am not a full blown libertarian (registered independent), I definitely lean in that direction and I would tend favor anything that curtails the amount of money the government gets to take from its citizens.

In the end though, I have to oppose this legislation, this bill is symptomatic, of the larger systemic problem with our society and government, where every “group” of people (think a broader definition of “special interests”) is trying to squeeze out a bigger piece of the pie, or achieve special consideration for themselves.

Think for a minute folks, beyond the scope of your own circumstances, and the ramifications of legislation like this in the context of our overall society.

Keep in mind that normal medical care for people is not even fully tax deductible.

October 5, 2009 at 5:24 pm
(36) Lloyd C. Lee says:

It would be better to spend the billions of dollars this bill would cost in lost revenue on the 47 million uninsured humans in this country. This bill is a case of the misplaced priorities of the Republican party, which is fighting hard to make sure health care remains unobtainable for many. I have chosen to have a pet, and I take responsibility for that choice; those without a health insurance typically don’t have a choice.

October 8, 2009 at 10:28 am
(37) Sandy Centazzo says:

For middle class people animal costs are expensive enough to fit into the family budget. I have two adopted dogs and they bring so much joy to the family, I don’t think it could be replaced. This bill could certainly help because just the cost of yearly checkups and shots are so expensive, additionally if your dog becomes ill it’s even more of a hardship. One of my dogs that was abused has low thyroid and a kidney that doesn’t handle protein too well. Prescription dog food, urine tests and pills for the thyroid problem have become very overwhelming. Any help from the government would be fantastic. I also have organized a dog and cat food program for frail, elderly seniors who can’t afford to buy food for their pets. In some cases this pet is the only thing they have in the world.

October 11, 2009 at 10:31 pm
(38) FLOR says:

I hope the bill passes. Our baby was diagnosed with Evans Syndrome about 10 days ago. were up to $14,000 in emergency vet bills and he is still under the emergency vets care. We are law abiding citizens, pay all of our bills on time, and were not rich . $14,000 is a lot of money but, we consider life more important, than money. We have no kids thankfully and yes, we will have to go without a lot of things since we have to pay the huge bill. We do hope the bill will pass. THanks

October 13, 2009 at 7:05 pm
(39) Carolyn says:

I am grateful that U S Rep., Thaddeus McCotter introduced the Happy Act. My pets have always been an important part of my life. Right now, Lady, a German Shepperd/Chow mix,(very gracious) and Bambi, a Min Pin who is hyper are my present family members. They add joy to my life of retirement and I love them very much. Thank You Rep. McCotter

October 15, 2009 at 9:50 pm
(40) Scott Wagner says:

They are family, but who do you think is going to pay for this? They will hand you this 3500 dollors and then stab you in the back with tax hikes and larger fees to license your pet. Every one in this country needs to stop looking for goverment hand outs and become strong standing citizens that take care of things themself.

October 17, 2009 at 4:33 pm
(41) mARILU says:

A pet is a luxury not a deductible.

October 17, 2009 at 4:36 pm
(42) Marilu says:

Children are starving, homeless, abused and neglected.
YOu people think owning dogs should be deductible.
How sad and sick is that.

October 18, 2009 at 1:37 pm
(43) Vicki Thomas says:

i sure hope this bill passes, my dog has been diagnosed with diabetes just a few months ago, we almost lost her , her kidneys were failing, we took her to the vet and after a week in the hospital, she is doing good now , it cost us over a thousand dollars and now shes on insulin and the cost of that is a hardship, shes has to have special food, needles, insulin,regular checkups, so i hope the bill passes!

October 27, 2009 at 6:50 am
(44) Conner says:

You people are reading this wrong. They want to TAX Your Dog. Dogs are meat eaters and that contributes to global warming. Sure it will be a tax write off to the people who still pat taxes but to those of us that either do not need to file or quit filing on basis of ethics, this is extra expense.

And I thought obama said he wasn’t going to raise taxes,or something like that

November 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm
(45) Diane McClure says:

I think this is a great idea. It reduces the need for foster homes and animal shelters due to the lack of personal funds. It is a tax break for the middle class instead of only for the rich! And, it keeps vets and others employed! Why should people be able to deduct property taxes for a luxury yaght and not for a lovable and valued pet?

December 6, 2009 at 4:44 pm
(46) Lori Ann says:

This is a great tax idea to be able to write off expenses for our beloved pets. My husband and I are retired and I am a diabetic and fibromyalgia sufferer. My dog, Queenie, soothes me with her bright brown eyes and her bobbed tailed wagging happily at me. She is the most affectionate dog ever. She is black and white with black freckles. She is my love. I do not know what I would do without her. (Kids are grown and gone. Now she is my baby now)! She is such a comfort to me. Do not think me crazy. My husband once thought I was until I got Queenie three and one half years ago. Now, he knows and understands the comfort a dog can bring to a home and to uplift an illness!

December 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm
(47) Lori Ann says:

Hi, again. I forgot to mention my Queenie is a petite Cocker Spaniel with all her black freckles and sweetness!

January 21, 2010 at 6:07 pm
(48) jason u says:

I think this is a good idea I have 3 wonderful dogs and wouldn’t trade them for anything. Its sad to think some of the previous comments I read say this is bad or its just another ploy from people. I am not fortunate enough to have children so my dogs are my kids. I read above its a republican idea, your probably one of the bleeding haert liberals who think everyone deserves equal healthcare whether you work or not. You probably don’t work and want healthcare I have to pay for, get a job and pay for it, I do. I give the government enough money why can’t I write off my pet expenses, I think those of us who truly care for our animals and do it right should be able to write off our pets, everyone knows some don’t treat their children right but they can still write them off, you can’t afford a kid don’t have them and leave me with the bill to take care of them.

February 4, 2010 at 4:11 am
(49) Russ G says:

For the last 20 years our family has never had less than 2 dogs. All were from shelters and were well cared for (our two labs were 16 & 17 years old when they died). I would never support this bill because animals are not human and should not be
considered in the same way as humans.

Attributing human charcteristics to animals is a misconception that continues to grow in our society. The very fact that this bill even exists shows how widespread this misconception has become.

February 4, 2010 at 11:43 am
(50) Dave Barnett says:

Although I have owned dogs and cats most of my life (and currently have two cats), I do not think our country can afford to offer tax deductions for pet care. The national debt is already staggering and we will be facing cuts in social services to pay for it. I don’t want to see even deeper cuts for disadvantaged people in order to provide financial assistance for those of us with pets. Part of being a responsible pet owner is taking the financial responsibility for caring for your animals. If you can’t afford it, you should not have them as pets. While I appreciate that some pet owners will want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on vet bills to deal with cancer and veterinary emergencies, I don’t think our country can afford to help subsidize that care. I spent several thousand on a cat who had a heart condition and was able to prolong his life by seven years. But, I was fortunate that I was able to make that choice. I certainly did not expect others to step up to pay for it. We don’t yet provide health care for all people in this country. I can’t support providing this sort of subsidy until we take care of our citizens.

February 4, 2010 at 7:49 pm
(51) Gizmo says:

My owner lost her job in 2007, and found another one in 2009. She was saddled with her own monthly finances (including COBRA), she also dealt with mine–feeding me and keeping up with my expensive vet appointments. I am as much her responsibility and the joy in her life during hard times, as children her to their parents. If parents can write their children off, there isn’t one good reason why pet owners can’t write a percentage (even a small percentage) of the vet bill.

February 6, 2010 at 11:28 pm
(52) Robin says:

This is a great idea! However, would this extend to all pets? I have a guard dog outside but inside I have 10 birds, different breeds but very loved. Would they be tax-deductible like my other kids?

February 7, 2010 at 8:21 am
(53) jv says:

I am dog-lover and owner. I’m also a pragmatist. While I would personally love a write off, I get why some feel this is not a good idea. Perhaps this tax-deduction just apply to shelter dogs or breed resscue adoptions? A tax write off will never cover the total cost of responsible dog ownership so I don’t see a bunch of people adopting dogs to qualify, but it may help push someone in the market for a dog to adopt a dog indire need of a loving home instead of going to a pet strore.

February 7, 2010 at 8:57 pm
(54) Lisa says:

As much as I would love financial help with the cost of caring for my dog, I don’t think this idea is economically feasible now. Yes, pet ownership provides benefits to those of us lucky enough to have furry critters in our lives — but that doesn’t mean that other taxpayers should underwrite our decision to live with animals.

If we are allowed deductions for pets’ medical bills, sure, our own tax bills will be lower since our taxable income will be reduced. But how is the government supposed to make up the lost revenue? Especially in a time of economic crisis and a high deficit?

Believe me, I know about high vet bills. My last dog — a beloved rescued Labrador — had lymphosarcoma. But I don’t think the government (that is, our fellow taxpayers) should be asked to subsidize our choice.

February 8, 2010 at 11:30 am
(55) Ricki says:

The fiscal irresponsibility of this is amazing. The taxpayers should subsidize veterinarians. Don’t you understand that is what this is all about.

February 8, 2010 at 2:37 pm
(56) Illuminarch says:

Can the people complaining about this please explain how the federal government stealing less of /your/ money gets construed into a subsidy for pet owners and veterinarians? It’s not like they’re going to pay you more than you would have put in. It’s a deduction, not a credit. If you don’t want to keep more of the money you earned, then don’t take the deduction. You can even send the government a bigger check than usual if you feel so strongly about it, but I’ll keep my money, thanks.

And human medical expenses absolutely should be tax deductible. That the tax system is ridiculously burdensome and unfair doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be happy to take advantage of any way possible to keep more of our money.

February 9, 2010 at 3:11 pm
(57) Julie says:

My husband and I couldn’t have children – which also, I would consider a choice…not a right. So we choose to have pets – a much better option :D .

So, since we are paying for everyone else’s children, wouldn’t it be nice to have a tax break many citizens would appreciate? My dogs & cats don’t shoot people at school, get into drug trouble, get pregnant (we get to fix them unlike children) and go on public aid.

February 12, 2010 at 11:34 am
(58) Janice says:

Look people, there is no comparison between dogs and children. They are PETS and yes, we love them, but they are NOT children. Get real.

February 12, 2010 at 12:25 pm
(59) Dorothy says:

I am so glad your Luke survived bloat because of your vigilance. My GSD Imperia also had bloat, I spent 2 hours transporting her to vets who were completely indifferent to the emergency.She died 10 minutes before I made it to the specialty care clinic. The loss has been beyond devastating.Besides wanting to rescind the license of the vets who did nothing to save her, I want an EMTALA law for animals passed. No animal who presents in crisis should be sent away without emergency intervention. I cannot believe the complete heartlessness of some veterinarians. Maybe if we had legal recognition through the IRS for our pets,vets who don’t give a damn might be held liable for malpractice.

February 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm
(60) John says:

Our governments have overspent and are way in the whole and now a new way to escape a tax burden, yes I think this is nuts. I have 5 dogs at home right now, some rescues and a charitable deduction, but please not another special interest as that is what this is.

February 18, 2010 at 5:14 pm
(61) Debbie says:

I would be so grateful for the deduction. I have 5 rescued Greyhounds. What God gave them in speed, He took from them in teeth. Between the dental cleanings and clipping their nails, I know I spend $3,500/year just on those two items.
I wish they would pass the deductions before I submit this year’s return. I could use the help.

February 18, 2010 at 5:26 pm
(62) Debbie says:

In response to Janice: Given what I see of this future generation, I’ll prefer pets. Pets don’t spend all day texting their friends- they can interactive socially. Pets love you unconditional; not because they want something. Pets are happy to see you; Pets don’t have their hand out for money. Pets don’t need a Wii to be entertained, a simple ball will do. Pets don’t steal from your wallet, don’t do drugs or alcohol and will protect when you are threatened. Pets don’t think that you were put on earth to serve them as some children do.
No, sorry to say, but I will take Pets over today’s children, any day.

February 24, 2010 at 9:40 pm
(63) Shiva105 says:

First, I’m a pet owner. I currently have three cats, two of which are getting up in the years. One is starting to suffer from kidney failure. Our youngest is like a child to me. I’ve also lost two cats over the years, one having to be put down and the other to a liver infection. All of my cats are like family to me.
However, I do *not* want a tax deduction for them! The proposal is so not thought out. How do you identify the pet? Are we going to start a “pet identification number” system? Second, as much as I enjoy the company of my cats, they are what I would call a luxury. A luxury I’m willing to pay for, but a luxury none the less.
If pet costs become deductible, where will the lost revenue be made up from? Does everybody get a tax increase so that we pet owners can get a deduction? Is that really fair, that some one who either can’t have or chooses not to have a pet, ends up paying more taxes so that those of us who do choose to have pets can save on our taxes? Do you really think that’s fair?
Personally, I don’t. I’d much prefer to be responsible for my own expenses.
or those who use the argument that pets make people healthier (I’m no expert, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s true), then shouldn’t “healthy food” be deductible? How far do you go in drawing the line of health benefit deductions? I don’t smoke- should I get a tax break for that? How about wearing a seatbelt? That’s certainly healthier than not wearing a seltbelt.
I realize that everyone wants to save money, but think about it- if you save a few hundred dollars a year, who’s going to pay a few hundred dollars more? Or are so selfish that you simply don’t care?

February 26, 2010 at 5:30 pm
(64) L C says:

I recently bought a german shepherd puppy and two months later he was in critical care. The vet said there was a 20% survival rate. I paid out of pocket over three thousand. I couldn’t afford it but as you know (Dog lovers) I couldnt imagine being without this puppy or letting my dog go through agony while I decided to let go.. I view the tax deduction as a good thing for people who truly view animals as family!

March 6, 2010 at 11:55 am
(65) Linda says:

While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, everyone needs to remember that any deduction or credit given to one taxpayer has to be made up by another. Unless the federal government has somehow found some extra cash they can afford to share with pet owners, or the Feds have reduced their spending, which I seriously doubt on both counts; the loss of tax collected by allowing this deduction will have to be replaced by taxpayers in other ways. Remember, a budget must be balanced. To give a break on one side means to take away from the other. I am the proud owner of 3 dogs, which includes a dog I rescued so no… I am not against pet owners. I am against giving a tax break for dogs in a place where we don’t even give them to PEOPLE or CHILDREN. And before I get blasted for saying that we don’t get a tax break for medical expenses on people, please understand I am also a CPA who has been preparing income tax returns for 25 years. While the “tax break” is there, it is so limited that very few Americans as a whole get much of a tax break for it.

I pay my fair share of taxes – income tax, sales tax, property tax, FiCA tax, Medicare tax… the list is endless. While I would love to be able to deduct $3,500 per year for my pets, I am unwilling to have another increase in tax to pay for it. People first – pets second. Let’s take care of our unemployed, our sick, our elderly and our children before we give tax breaks to pet owners.

March 8, 2010 at 12:32 pm
(66) Sandy Sand says:

Here! Here! I’m all for this. The individual tax payer can use a break, especially those on fixed or retirement incomes, love their pets and are finding it hard to keep or replace them.

Here in Los Angeles the city council wants pet dogs to cost more by having the Dept. of Water & Power spy on home owners and share its computer files of addresses where dogs reside (a system used to protect meter readers) and share that information with animal regulations, so they can collect license fees.

And don’t even think about getting pet health insurance. It’s as corrupt and difficult to manage as people health insurance and works the same way with pre-existing contitions, is very expensive and doesn’t pay vets quickly or well.

In other words: It’s a total ripoff!

March 10, 2010 at 4:11 pm
(67) chuck from the cape says:


We have two kids, two cats and one (very loveable) dog. But kids are kids and pets are pets. Deductions make sense for children because they are human HUMAN dependents. We have big investments in these citizens to-be (schools, universities, etc). They will eventually be taxpayers so we can re-coup some of the lost revenue. Farmers running a farm get some subsidies for their livestock-heavy business. Little Fifi sitting on you lap does NOT count as Livestock/Livelihood or HUMAN/future taxpayer. Unless Fifi falls into one of these categories, then you cannot have a tax write-off for her. I don’t feel like taking a big tax revenue hit (necessitationg higher taxes elsewhere) so that some childless and/or single dog enthusiast gets “their share”. Society has a big investment in helping families, they have little to no investment in helping single/childless households justify THEIR choice not to have kids. Neither should they surrender tax revenue for peoples’ hobbies/obsessions/non-human companion. I have four fishtanks and 55 fish too, you don’t see me with my hand out looking to score 55 tax exemptions! Get a clue (and a life)!

March 10, 2010 at 11:01 pm
(68) sonshi says:

If this were up for a vote, I’d say no.

Something people always overlook with things like this is that the lost tax revenue will have to be made up elsewhere. So this feel-good policy is really a request for non-pet owners to subsidize pet owners. This is a politically friendly move [as most people have animals] but inherently unfair to those who don’t. Think of the people with horrible allergies, or those in the inner cities who can’t have animals due to housing issues. . .you’re asking them to pay a little more to make your vet and pet food bills easier.

The argument can be made with children that tax exemptions are reasonable — These kids will eventually be paying taxes and social security, so we all have a vested interest in their upbringing and well-being. Pets absolutely have the potential to bring meaning and fulfillment to people’s lives. . .but so does the trip to South America I have been wanting to take for years. Some people have the great fortune of meeting their mate on dating websites. . .because it’s greatly fulfilling and meaningful, should that be tax deductible too? How about the gasoline used to drive to church? Very slippery slope.

This quote from the article is very telling: “We all know the high cost of dog ownership and that every little bit helps. This bill could bring a whole new light to saving money on our pets’ expenses.”
This is NOT FREE MONEY. It’s going to be taken from somewhere else! Please take a moment and identify what part of your support for this is actually *selfishness*. Everyone is hurting right now. Tax breaks should affect everyone, not just the 63% of households that make it a politically-friendly proposal.

Additionally, what pets count? Every horse owner will max this exemption out in a few months, and max it out every year. A $3500 exemption will encourage many people to GET a dog [whether they're qualified owners or not]. This idea is just BEGGING to be taken advantage of.

This is a redistribution of tax burden. It’s not the first time, won’t be the last time, but I say ‘no’. The author claims 63% of households have pets. . .if 1/2 of them use this exemption we’re talking about A LOT of lost tax revenue.

March 11, 2010 at 9:39 am
(69) chuck from the cape says:


You expressed what I feel more eloquently than I could. Thank you, I are right on the mark.

March 11, 2010 at 4:29 pm
(70) Chris says:

This sounds really great, but think of all the people who will now get pets for the wrong reason…not because they love them and truly enjoy life with them. Could lead to a lot of unwanted pets after taxes are filed.

March 18, 2010 at 3:34 pm
(71) shepard says:

Yes,this is so great.I do acknoledge that money cannot buy love but sure helps to pay those big vet bills.I had a Lhasa apso for 12 years and towards the end I had to take him to the vet almost every few days and we did not want to give up.Well could not save my boy but did have a huge bill.I think it is agreat idea to have tax deductable for licensed pets.

March 19, 2010 at 1:20 pm
(72) Betty Henderson says:

I think this is a fabulous idea. Our pet’s are our family member too.When they’re sick we treat them the same as any other family member who sick. Their bills are just as expense and if you don’t have Pet Insurance (which I do) but its still an expense you can’t claim on your taxes. We can deduct other medical expenses, it would be great to be able to deduct my pet’s expenses.

March 20, 2010 at 2:05 am
(73) diane rome says:

Finally……. some good news ! I think the tax deduction is excellent. My dog “is” my family, and vet bills are very expensive.

March 22, 2010 at 9:33 pm
(74) Lomax says:

This is idiocy of the highest order.

March 23, 2010 at 1:33 pm
(75) Jim says:

My wife had a stroke due to surgery. She was severely depressed. I bought a dog for her and it has acted as a therputic aid. No therapy was helping her as the puppy did. They now have a very strong bond. The dog eats at the table and travels with us. This dog saved my wife’s life. If congress can have their own healthcare system and force us to have one, then why should I not be able to deduct the health care associated with my wife’s therapist? Oh and Ted.. #18…. It is called a Thesaurus, you might want to invest in one….. the word you need is “wastes” not “waists” unless you want to shrink yours- like your mind.

March 23, 2010 at 4:11 pm
(76) Owner of 2 pugs says:

Stupidist idea ever–and there’s a lot of competition for that role!
1. If pet expenses are deducted, who’s gonna make up the federal revenue lost? Non pet-owners. In short, this is a tax increase on non pet owners to subsidize their generally wealthier pet owning neighbors.
2. MORE paperwork???
3. An open invitation to tax deduction fraud.

March 24, 2010 at 1:18 pm
(77) Marie Brown says:

That would be awesome if the bill passes. I have always had pets (all rescues, lost, surrendered)and sometimes I spend alot of money for vet bills plus food. One of my dogs was bitten by a snake a 2 years ago and I ended spending close to $3000 for that one incident. Pets are a part of our lives and ignoring the expense they incur is ridiculous.

March 25, 2010 at 8:10 pm
(78) Debie says:

Its a great idea. I have 2 yellow labs and one has health problems. $7000 has been spent diagnosing and maintaining him in the last 18 months.
We have to feed special food, so the other food we had we posted on Craig’s list . I had 20 emails in under 2 minutes for the free dog food. With the amount of people struggling , maybe less animals will end up in shelters or euthanized.

March 28, 2010 at 12:34 am
(79) Robin Amundson says:

For years I have suggested to my tax clients who ask that they lobby Congress to change the Internal Revenue Code to allow them to claim exemptions for pets, as parents do their dependent children. Practically speaking, though, pet expenses as a tax deduction could lead to people who are not suitable pet parents getting pets just for the deduction. This could lead to animal neglect and abuse. The opportunity for fraud here is huge. Pets would have to be registered with the federal government, leading to a huge new bureaucracy. Once the government has a financial interest in people’s pets, it opens the door to federal regulation of pet ownership. The IRS will have to expand even further for the audit program of pet owners that would ensue. Currently the IRS has enough on its plate expanding the international audits, and now its new responsibility for monthly audits of every American, ensuring we are all meeting our new legal obligation to buy health insurance. Is this really worth it for a few dollars tax benefit?

April 13, 2010 at 1:06 pm
(80) V Davis says:

I think this is a fantastic bill. It might assist those whose finances have been destroyed or on a fixed income to be able to keep their pets.

April 14, 2010 at 8:16 am
(81) Asha says:

My thoughts are more inline with (78) Robin A. If a law is passed under the guise of helping us, it will allow further invasion into our lives. This will ultimately lead to additional taxes BUT not before people run out and get a pet to get the tax deduction.

On the outside it appears like it will help, hence, the majority of the comments. But a bill like this like so many others will ultimately hurt us. People beware of government they only do things to help themselves, not us. (I am a registered Democrat of 37 years and my eyes are wide open.)

April 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm
(82) jturner says:

How many of you folks that are againsnt this legislation will claim the deduction if it does pass ?? Haha.

April 15, 2010 at 3:39 pm
(83) Trace says:

If I MUST support other people’s children – because they aren’t bright enough to not have children they cannot afford, then what is wrong with getting a tax break for a pet that I can afford and did choose!

April 15, 2010 at 3:55 pm
(84) Mikey says:

Do roaches count?

April 18, 2010 at 8:57 am
(85) Sammy says:

I think, as there is with everything, there are positives and negatives with this. The positives are mainly for animal lovers who have pets. I am one of those people. However I can see how this may seem like an issue to non-pet owners. But just stop for one minute and think about this… your taxes go to a lot of things that everybody benefits from, like healthcare and education, but it also goes to some things that pisses people off, like to the people who sit at home on welfare and don’t bother to get a job, or to people who do work but have kids even though they know they can’t afford it. So to those people who are wholly against this, just think about that for a minute. Also think about the hundreds of organisations that try to combat the pet overpopulation, and the amount of resources that go into that, if there was some sort of tax deduction for vet bills, overpopulation wouldn’t be as much of an issue because then people who may have been otherwise unable to pay for thier pet to be spayed or neutered, would then have the means to do so.

May 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm
(86) Karen C. says:

I think this is great for us animal lovers such as I. Thank you.

May 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm
(87) Lizzy says:

I think this is a great idea… my tiny dog doesn’t eat much, but I don’t see how this is much different than a family writing off a recently-born baby. My friend (who just had a baby) loves the fact that the gov. reimbursed her $4,000 for him. My turn!

May 14, 2010 at 12:06 am
(88) Denker says:

Equating pets and children is ridiculous. Healthy well educated children grow up to be tax payers. That is why the government gives families a break. The investment is worth it to hopefully prevent or reduce the number of children that grow up to be a tax burden through welfare or incarceration.

The government has already spent past any of our tomorrows. They need to figure out how to keep more money, not dole it out.

And yes, we are a two pet family.

May 14, 2010 at 6:35 pm
(89) CRW says:

Oh c’mon. Really? Unless an animal is a service or farm animal, there is no reason anyone should be able to deduct a luxury like a pet. We have a big enough federal deficit as it is without silly proposals like this.

May 15, 2010 at 6:57 pm
(90) Carolyn says:

Your point of “we can deduct our own health care expenses and many of our purchases, so why not our pets?” is well-taken. The obvious answer is that you should not be able to deduct your own health care expenses or any of your purchases. Simplify the tax code by eliminating ALL deductions and then lower the rates! After all, what business is it of government (and ESPECIALLY the Federal Government) to encourage the ownership of pets, homes, etc.

May 17, 2010 at 6:40 am
(91) ralphy says:

Oh Please

May 17, 2010 at 6:47 am
(92) ralphy says:

Oh Please, let’s use some common sense here folks. We’re already being taxed to death. This kind of break just adds more burden to those who make a choice not to have an animal. I happen to love my dog and cat, but I don’t ask everyone else to pay for it. If you can’t afford a pet then don’t get one. How about this idea. Maybe we should give a 100% tax credit for everyone who buys an exotic sports car. I think that’s fair because it would make me feel better and I think you should help pay for it.

May 18, 2010 at 10:57 pm
(93) Paul says:

Markers, our cat, lived for 19 years. Abby, our wonderful 8 year yound yellow lab, died on May 8. In their own way, they both brought unquantifiable joy to our family. However, it was OUR decision to adopt and (happily) maintain these animala. We animal lovers make those choices willingly. Any and all tax deductions should go, first,towards children’s health services, and then to ASPCA and other animal rescue organizations.

May 19, 2010 at 7:39 am
(94) Rafael Garcia says:

I think it is about time that a law like this one is passed. My dogs are my kids and they definitely part of our family.

May 19, 2010 at 8:08 am
(95) Richard says:

I have 2 frogs and a mosquito named ted. Would they qualify as pets? If one of the frogs croaks, would that be covered?

May 19, 2010 at 8:50 am
(96) Bob says:

I’m helped to feel better by a TV set and a bottle of Jameson. On top of that, many American households have either or both. Wonder if either of those could qualify for the deduction.

May 19, 2010 at 9:59 am
(97) richard says:

Bob: thanks for reminding me – while they don’t drink, one of my frogs and Ted the mousquito watch Katie Couric four nights a week. Could I deduct 4/7 of the cost of my 52 inch plasma TV???

May 19, 2010 at 12:27 pm
(98) Priscilla Thomas says:

It is a great idea! With all the animals in rescue, it could get more adopted when people realize that they can claim their pet on their taxes. They are our children (dependents) after all. With the tax write off it could also increase the amount of people who spay/neuter their pets. Absolutely a win win for all concerned.

May 20, 2010 at 4:26 am
(99) luci segarra says:

Do cats count?

May 22, 2010 at 5:23 am
(100) Sandy says:

I would venture to guess, IF it passes, we would have to be able to itemize to take the deductions. I could not see them giving it to us as a straight out deduction.

May 22, 2010 at 5:24 am
(101) Tracy says:

Only if I can itemize my taxes, huh??!!

May 22, 2010 at 4:32 pm
(102) Dallene Weaver says:

Love the idea! I would encourage people to take better care of their pets and get them to the doctor when they are sick or need the vaccinations. We’d have healthier pets and healthier people, too. It would also encourage adoption.
If people were rewarded for adopting from a shelter, that would discourage puppy mills too. There would be less demand for those puppies. So I would include this in the future bill to be voted on. If there are financial incentives, people would be encouraged to give to their pets in return for what their pets have given them:love and loyalty, as well, as much happiness.

May 25, 2010 at 11:30 am
(103) Wmv says:

This sort of sideways “subsidy” for the veterinary and animal medicine and supplies industry is totally unecessary. It will raise pet ownership costs even higher than the ridiculous amount pet owners pay currently. In earlier times such industries stayed competetive by lowering their prices. The high lifestyles in this industry have expanded since the early 1980s. Do pet doctors really need six figure incomes, especially when we need to start a doggie medicare/medicaid equivalency to maintain that? We grow increasingly absurd and frivolous by the day. And I take wonderful care of all my pets (have and had).

May 25, 2010 at 2:24 pm
(104) MarlboroMike says:

Bad idea. People will start hoarding pets just like crack moms keep having welfare babies.

May 25, 2010 at 9:03 pm
(105) Debra says:

I think this is a Wonderful idea. Its about time! I admit I have pondered the idea many times. I don’t have kids and my dog is my little boy and he is family. He has expenses and it would be so helpful if we could take a tax deduction at the end of the year. Times are tough but he never goes without.
If we petition I will sign my name.

May 28, 2010 at 12:19 pm
(106) Sis says:

What kind of documentation would have to be provided to prove you own the pet and have incurred the expenses? Sounds like a good reason for the government to start registering pets beyond the annual license. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a $100 annual registration fee per pet. No thanks!!

May 30, 2010 at 12:33 am
(107) Renee says:

Wow, not sure what is more amazing, this great idea, or the number of people who don’t understand what a tax deduction is…
(Hint, it doesn’t mean the government gives you $3500.)

May 30, 2010 at 5:06 pm
(108) Jeff says:

I do other people’s taxes and I can guarantee you that if a tax law change like this passed, 90% of the people who walked through the door would have a pet that they spent $3500 on. It is hard enough keeping track of who gets to claim which children and they each have social security numbers! This would simply turn into a tax cut for everyone. Unfortunately, we currently spend more money than we take in as a government, so tax cuts are not really the solution. Now, if you wanted to balance a cut like this with an increase for someone else, (like say, multinational corporate giants who get tax credits for drilling for oil) then lets have at it! I do own a dog and have spent many thousands on him over the years.

June 2, 2010 at 4:02 am
(109) Molly says:

This is a HORRIBLE idea. This kind of thing is why the US and world’s financial system is such a mess. Our founding fathers considered it criminal for the government to take money from the citizens for anything other than to pay for infrastructure and defense of the US–not even for charity. Why? Because every dollar that one person receives without working for, someone else works for without receiving. Yes, pets are wonderful, but they are optional. If you can’t afford them, don’t have them. Its not right to take money from someone else’s pocket to pay for your optional pleasures. Tax money doesn’t come out of the air–it come’s from each person’s hard work.

June 2, 2010 at 2:51 pm
(110) Bill says:

I have gone to the ASPCA site, added the following customization to their proposed letter, and sent it to my representative. I urge you to do the same:


June 2, 2010 at 4:47 pm
(111) susan mayer says:

I agree with Bill. The dog owners and their dogs got already their free ride. All of us have to pay for their hobby: owning a dog. Dog feces are everywhere: on streets, parks, playgrounds.Our tax money pay for cleaning up. We all have to listen barking dogs or put au with unknown dogs jumping on us or acting friendly to a dog just to not get bitten. We should invest more in our children and schools not in dogs. Actually, I think dog owners should pay higher taxes for owning a dog and all the discomfort they create for the other humans.

June 2, 2010 at 6:08 pm
(112) Elizabeth says:

We have 3 dogs. Two are old boys 11 and 13. The third is a young girl. She’s 1 1/2 years old. They are all very dear to us and our grandkids.
They served a great deal more than just family pets. 10 years ago, we lost our oldest child. The death of our son left us inconsolable. That’s where our older dogs stepped in. One took the day watch, the other took the night shift. I was not alone with my grief. They were always at my side, including very loving shoulders to cry on. Most people can’t handle a relationship with a bereaved parent. They don’t know what to say or do, and any sign of tears freaks them out. Our furry family members seemed to understand that just being there was all we needed. I could sob my broken heart out, with my face buried in their fur. They never deserted me and were an important part of helping me recover and come to terms with this unthinkable tragedy.
They are old now and have a lot of health issues that come along with advancing age. Their treatments and medications ae expensive. We will not let them down. They were there for us at our darkest hours and we will stand by them for as long as the good Lord will let us.
As we approach retirement, a tax break on our more-reduced income would be most welcome.

June 3, 2010 at 12:21 pm
(113) Jody says:

You people who are against this sort of government spending are missing the point. People are greedy. EVERYONE is greedy, so don’t anyone try to lie and say they aren’t. There are varying degrees, but everyone is greedy.

People tend to not spend money on pets. Pets are disposable for many people. It is cheaper to put a pet down than to care for it through an illness. Or worse, people don’t take their pets to the vet when it truly is necessary. There is a lot of pain and suffering, neglect and abuse (either caused by cruelty or simple economic problems).

This bill would actually stimulate the economy and improve the overall health of the general pet population. It would bring more people in to the vet, thus increasing the revenues for the vet. More people would be incented to provide good care for their pets.

You can see this behavior through the various recent tax programs like the first time home buyer credit, “cash for clunkers”, the energy efficient appliance credit, etc. There will also be tax credits for the new health insurance bills.

Social engineering, love it or hate it, will always be a part of government. We are already paying for the neglect, why not pay for preventative maintenance instead?

June 5, 2010 at 9:43 am
(114) Mary says:

I add my NO vote to this idea – I AM a loving pet owner, have been all my life –

I never realized how SELFISH pet owners were – almost everyone writing here, in favor of this newest government regulation into our already tapped-out lives, writes all about their own little fido’s or fluffy’s – and how much like children THEY are, which makes it totally reasonable to then agree that they should get the same tax breaks as a human child!

I am a parent, and raised all my kids into wonderful TAX-PAYING adults – with good jobs and educations! – - it was a struggle for many years – I did NOT have kids so the government could give me a deduction for them! It was also an INVESTMENT in them and their futures – - OUR futures!

I have also been a pet owner all my life, taken very good care of every one of them, rescued the vast majority (two were gifts) –

But even after a full loving life, lots of fun, and yes, taking care of them ALL their lives, they never went to college, they never PAID any taxes, they never got jobs, and paid into our dwindling social security for HUMAN’S care, – - my “investment” in them was the pleasure and love that I got in return.

And owning them was a CHOICE I made – and I accepted the responsibility and expense that went with it.

If this law passes, I wish some of you would look outside your own doors, and realize that this is not just about YOU getting a refund for YOUR beloved pet – WHO is going to pay for that lost money – as already stated, our government is already in the hole! Where are they going to find the money to make up this difference?

Our government HAS responsibilities that it is not meeting, already – to HUMANS – people who HAVE been educated, perhaps even fought in wars for us, PAID their taxes, PAID into the dwindling social security system – and lots of them have pets, but if asked if they’d want the money taken from a HUMAN’S care to be put toward a pet, I can only imagine the volume of laughter that would come!

Since when did we as humans decide that money spent on a luxury – yes, a pet – and a CHOICE – should be re-couped, just because we LOVE them? I love my garden also – where’s my money? I really love the paint I put in the living room – where’s my money? oh, and I LOVE!!!! that it rained last night – where’s my money?

Pets are PETS – and yes, they ARE hopefully very loved! but they are NOT human – they are NOT “family”, even tho we do love them as much, (or sometimes even MORE) than the families we do have –

They will grow up, having giving their all to us, (the greedy humans we are) – and they will die – they do NOT contribute to “society” as a general commodity, or even as a whole – not with all the strays wandering around the streets, “tapping the patience and generosity of “society” – they contribute to the “family” that loves them. That FAMILY is responsible for them!

There IS a difference!

I do not want the government opening NEW agencies to monitor all these pet expenses, and then make NEW laws to make sure htat this law isn’t being “abused”, – -

What happens if you get audited? Do you really want someone showing up at the door, to look in your cupboards to be certain that you are actually buying the expensive food that’s been claimed? (even tho a friend works at the pet store and gets it for a discount, and passes that discount on to friends) –

even tho “opening new agencies” might be offering some jobs – - these would NOT be middle class jobs – - not too many middle class or fixed income people work for the government!

There are way too many scary and BAD parts to a law like this – I will continue to love my pets, and take very good care of them, but that is MY CHOICE!

I say keep the government OUT of my personal business as much as possible – another “monitor” into our lives is NOT such a good thing, people!

June 5, 2010 at 10:19 am
(115) Danica says:

Renee – that IS sort of what it means – -

the government uses the TAXES as it’s INCOME base, they build a budget around it.

If suddenly 63% of the population DEDUCTS (decreases) how much it’s paying in by $3500., then that much money no longer exists in the governments INCOME ledger. It means they do NOT have it to spend on education, roads, security –

And it does not matter, if you just look at it as “your” money, SOMEONE has to make up the difference –

I also vote NO on this – I say put a TAX on pets! They’re already getting a free ride! (I’ve been a pet lover for all my life – and have TAKEN CARE of them- becaue having them was a choice I made!)

June 5, 2010 at 12:04 pm
(116) Keebler says:

My pets are my babies, and my husband and I have often joked that we should be able to write them off just like “real” children. I am all for this! The governments TAKES enough of my money – it sure would be nice to get some of it back.

June 5, 2010 at 5:02 pm
(117) Harry Hurt says:

Yes, we should have a tax on pets. This is to shift the burden of dog pound expenses to pet owners instead of the general fund. But don’t we already have that tax, in the form of dog tag fees? Also, why should pets get a big tax deduction, when Social Security recipients don’t? There was a time that SS benefits were not taxed, but LBJ, the most tragically assinine president in my lifetime, put a tax on it.

Pehaps a deduction would be appropriate for work animals, such as sheep-herding dogs, seeing-eye dogs, work-horses, etc.

June 8, 2010 at 1:04 am
(118) g7 says:

I have a few rose bushes and other such… They keep up my health and are of use to my neighbors’ dogs …

I am writing to my congressman!

June 8, 2010 at 9:36 am
(119) sherri says:

imagine that more homeless animals would find a loving home.
also imagine that euthanizing an animal just because it is homeless would stop

June 8, 2010 at 9:40 am
(120) Barry says:

This is so unbelieveable I checked to see if the bill was dated April 1st. I have a pet and it can be expensive, but this country is trillions of dollars in debt. The last thing we need is another tax deduction particularly one that would be very difficult to prevent cheating on.

June 8, 2010 at 11:47 am
(121) Colin says:

As a dog owner, and as someone who loves their dog dearly I think this is incredibly stupid. A tax writeoff is basically a way for the government to pay you to do something. They’ll cover part of your expense for something (your home, your college, your kids) because the government wants to encourage you to do these things (buy a home, go to college, have children) because they feel it benefits society and it’s something that’s expensive that a lot of people can’t afford. Personally, I disagree with this way of doing it in general but we can talk about that another day.

I love my dog and I will spend whatever I can afford to keep him happy and healthy. Eventually it will become cost prohibitive to keep him alive and I will be very very sad for a long time. Regardless of that it is not the governments responsibility to pay for me to have a dog. They could be doing much better things with that money. I would vote against this deduction and I appreciate the heads up about this amendment so I can write my congressmen about it.

I will say that in the case of service animals, as the one guy mentioned, I would make an exception.

June 8, 2010 at 1:52 pm
(122) Kimberly says:

It sounds like a deduction that would benefit even the lowest bracket that pays taxes, which makes it a good thing for people who don’t make a lot of money. Many people in this bracket don’t adopt pets because they can’t afford it. So many tax deductions only benefit people who make a lot more money, who can afford to spend enough to itemize deductions. It really stinks when you’re looking for a break, but find out you don’t make enough to spend enough to get one. It stinks even more when you find out someone else who makes more money can afford to itemize and pay less in taxes!

June 8, 2010 at 8:17 pm
(123) Angry taxpayer says:

Anything to keep the money away from Congress. Maybe instead of using the census to decide how much money to return to each state they raise the personal deduction so it never leaves the states?

June 8, 2010 at 8:28 pm
(124) Mike says:

Get into the law a real tax deduction for your personal health care first!! then take care of your dogs!! My God, this nation is going down…

June 8, 2010 at 8:47 pm
(125) dogdaze says:

As the ethically devoid representatives in Washington spend with wild abandon and ready the “tax bat’ to bash us into submission, I will gleefully support any measure, within reason, that allows me to keep more of what is rightfully mine. In 2009 I did a full audit of all my spending and revenue and found my overall, effective tax rate to be ~39%. Way too much even if we do live in a society where it is widely regarded as ethical to have a safety net that is holistic. Also – Since my lab blew out her ACL and needs surgery to repair, what the heck, if I can write it off, I’m going for it!!!!

June 8, 2010 at 9:54 pm
(126) TaxableGuy says:

Of course, you could equally well describe it as an increase of the tax burden on non-pet owners.

June 9, 2010 at 12:24 am
(127) Leanne says:

To all of those who call this bill a hand out, or socialist, or whatever – it is not. Income tax is socialistic in the first place (and was supposed to be a “temporary” measure, thanks FDR!). Being able to get back as much of your taxes that the over-reaching federal government has taken from you is quite legitimate IMHO.

The author and supporters of this bill are not asking for the government to set up a fund to pay for people’s expenses. They are proposing that people be able to write off against their income a certain amount of what they have already spent on pet care expenses. For most people, in the 15% to 25% tax bracket, the max tax savings would be $525 to $875, if you spent the whole $3,500 and if you itemize expenses.

I agree the bill needs to be tightened up in terms of defining legally owned – some type of registration papers or license – and expenses. Vet care and related medications and vaccinations are the most expensive items and should be covered. I’m not sure I would support food since that would be too easy to abuse. I would support including licensing fees and other charges, including higher rent. Heck, a two-year-old child causes more damage to an apartment than the average dog or cat. I’ve seen the difference between my sister’s carpet with one toddler compared to mine with multiple cats and/or dogs!

Pets bring health benefits to many, and especially to those who live alone. Helping people afford pets could reduce our country’s health care expenses, have you thought of that? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

June 9, 2010 at 9:47 am
(128) Garry Forman says:

As much as I’d like to pay lower taxes, unless there is also a plan to make up for the lost tax revenue, this is a bad idea. I think it is justified in certain circumstances, such as service dogs and therapy dogs, not-for-profit rescues and shelters, but that’s about it.

I love my dogs and cats. They are part of my family. But ultimately, they are a luxury. I choose to make them part of my family. Whatís next? Tax credits for big screen TVís and sports cars? They make me happy too, but I donít think itís the responsibility of our government to subsidize them with taxpayer dollars.

June 12, 2010 at 12:13 am
(129) Linda says:

Yes. I approve. Especially for service dogs.
I spend more on pet care than I do on my own medical bills…. and I have cancer!!!!! actually, it’s pretty close – but I have copays, the vet bills are high. Spent $8,000 and would have spent more — trying to save my English Mastiff, Little Bruce. (hind leg paralysis – vets did not think they could help him) .. And if we had this – would others be encouraged to adopt and thus decrease the number euthanized.

I would also like to see HIGH TAXES put on breeders’ incomes…… especially these “designer” breeds Lordy. yes, i know a lot of you are gonna holler now,

June 14, 2010 at 9:33 am
(130) Oodoodanoo says:

No, this is stupid. There is a big difference between kids and pets. Pets will never grow up to pay taxes or serve in the military. Working dogs, yes. Those should be deductible. Pets? No.

Even child tax deductions may only be justifiable when seen on average, because not every child grows up to be a benefit to society. But, on average, it could work out. There’s no way you could claim the same thing with pets.

And yes, it absolutely makes sense to frame the question like that. A deduction is basically free money to you from the government. Do you give away free money to millions of people? Wouldn’t you expect something in return? The government has the right to ask whether this does it any good, and as a taxpayer (a shareholder) I say it doesn’t.

Yes, your pets are your babies. Convince me that I should give a crap about that.

June 14, 2010 at 9:41 am
(131) Oodoodanoo says:

Again, if you’re willing to support this deduction — a tax cut — then accept a similarly-sized cut in spending. All this “socialist government takes too much, I want it back” nonsense I see here doesn’t mention anything about the fact that taxes pay for roads, schools, aircraft carriers, and Medicare.

Tell me which one of those you don’t want before you ask for another tax cut.

June 15, 2010 at 2:04 am
(132) CincyDogLover says:

Just how do you people think we can pay for anything in this country (not too mention the unreal debt our grandkids are facing) by giving a $3500 (WOW!) tax deduction to 60% of the population? For a service they would already pay for…and will not create a single job…but will surely increase the vetinerian’s rates. God help this country.

June 15, 2010 at 9:00 am
(133) Cheryl says:

There is no down side to this!! This is huge for pet owners and potential pets alike. Think of all the animals in shelters or on “death row” that are ignored for adoption b/c people can’t afford their care – or worse, the family pets that have been surrendered due to the high cost of pet care. Perhaps more people would be able to keep their pets and more would be adopted with this tax deduction.

June 28, 2010 at 5:55 pm
(134) FRED SCHULZ says:

This should be a tax write off. It is medical , RX’S, surgery,the same medical, that affects us , they are human and subject to the same medical problems as we have, let’s get a bill passed, ASAP……… our elected rep’s in DC should pass it if they get off their lacey bottoms>>>>

July 2, 2010 at 2:17 am
(135) Rico says:

Service dogs, yes. Pets, no.

July 2, 2010 at 3:43 am
(136) Abbi says:

Great idea – but should be a larger deduction for those who adopt/rescue dogs than for those who spend $3,000 for a sickly puppy mill dog!

July 2, 2010 at 3:58 am
(137) PJ Catanach says:

My Dad can well afford his dog. He takes him to the Vet, buys him meds and keeps him on a special diet. He loves him like he is my brother. The one thing that I keep thinking about is, that after my Mom died, it was that dog that kept my Dad going. He got up in the morning to let him out and feed him. He is the reason, that 5 years later, my Dad is still going strong. For the first time in his life my Dad had to learn to live alone and this pooch gave him the will to do it. I would say this is worth a tax deduction.

July 2, 2010 at 4:38 am
(138) deadlawn says:

So will I be able to deduct the use of my property and all the time and energy I spend cleaning up dog poop on my lawn from other lazy, selfish dog owners?

This deduction is ridiculous and will snowball into all kinds of crazy legislation. Pets are a privilege not a right. If I can deduct the cost of having a dog from my taxes then I should be able to deduct the cost of visiting strippers from my taxes. Companionship and happiness can come from strippers as well.

Giving pet owners a special deduction is insane!

July 2, 2010 at 4:45 am
(139) thinkaboutit says:

Won’t this lead to animal abuse or at least neglect? If people are allowed to deduct $3500, this will create an incentive for non-pet lovers to get a pet regardless if they want one just for the deduction.

Or even better yet, who is going to check if you really have a pet? Make it up, license a fictitious dog and get the deduction.

Can’t do this with kids because they are born in hospitals and have social security numbers.

This deduction is a really Bad idea!

July 2, 2010 at 5:40 am
(140) not a liberal says:

people are saying that non pet owners will have to pay taxes on pets if this passes, well duh! Why shouldn’t they? I have no children and I still have to pay school taxes! As far as the uninsured people, trust me I am a nurse, these sobs get better health care than working stiffs with insurance get. We get harrassed over the bills and making payments while the slugs living off the government get free health care and still get big fat refunds every year because they can breed. FortunatelyI don’t believe it will ever pass, but then again the gov isn’t known for making smart decisions now is it?

July 2, 2010 at 7:23 am
(141) Kim in NY says:

I have 6 dogs, 5 cats, and 3 parrots. All very loved and very well cared for. I probably put my Vet’s kids through college twice over! However, I do NOT believe we should get a tax deduction for being pet owners.

Pet ownership regulations differs state by state, county by county, town by town. What’s to stop people who don’t really like animals from just adopting dogs or cats, throwing them in a pen outside in the back and giving them just enough food and water to keep them alive, just so they can claim a deduction? What type of misery would those poor animals endure – in snow, heat, rain..no one to ever pet them or say a kind word – just so the rest of us can take a deduction on our taxes??!!

It’s bad enough that people who can’t afford to feed the kids they have, keep having children! Now we are going to allow them to be irresponsible pet owners!!

No, this would be a great tragedy.

July 2, 2010 at 9:04 am
(142) joanie says:

I think your dog should run for elected office. It’s obviously brighter than you are

July 2, 2010 at 9:51 am
(143) Jimbob says:

What about other animals? Snakes, cats, rats, and any other pets would have to have the same deductibles in order for this to be fair.

July 2, 2010 at 11:32 am
(144) Dejah says:

We’re a family of many pets, livestock animals and to my chagrin I have at least once spent too much to save an animal that on balance should have been put down. I’m not much into subsidizing the overly large vet bills of people who think animals are people instead of animals, but how much is it really? In aggregate, perhaps large, but to any particular family, probably not much.

I’m also a tax professional. For the average family, we’re talking a net tax reduction of about $350 (probably on-refundable so if you already have kids, forget about it). It’s not much of a dent in the $xxxx vet bills some might like to claim. For people in the highest bracket, it might turn into almost $2000.

I’d be very interested to see how the regulations shake out… it would probably be very little help for anyone.

July 2, 2010 at 11:33 am
(145) biged says:

Should be a security write off also. Dogs protect!

July 2, 2010 at 2:52 pm
(146) jo McDaniel says:

Dogs make me upset. They stink, shed hair and are under foot, they make my blood pressure go up!

July 2, 2010 at 3:19 pm
(147) Jerry says:

Absolutely ridiculous! We need reform not bizarre deductions. Instead of providing deductions for pets we should look at moving employee business expenses back as an exemption under the 2106 instead of an itemized deduction. Want will be next a deduction for goldfish.

July 2, 2010 at 8:10 pm
(148) R says:

Great idea! Can we just write off everything? I need a drink!

July 2, 2010 at 9:15 pm
(149) Tina says:


WHY? Control the American people.

I am a pet owner, from a family of breeders of Labs. There are shots, and other vet needs that are necessary. Poor breeding leads to large vet bills. Healthy dogs need only yearly vet care. Vet needs money so poorly breed (puppy mills) dogs are for sale. Know the background of the puppy, the conditions of the parents – NEVER by in a pet store. Meet with the breeder, see the grounds, the peanuts of the puppy, see the rest of the litter.

Read about the breed you want to own. Puppies are cute but grow up. Be Responsible!

More COMMUNISM in the lives of Americans.

July 3, 2010 at 2:54 am
(150) David says:

People, please. This is not serious. Thaddeus McCotter is a Republican Congressman from Michigan, in his second term in the House. He is in the minority, and has been ever since he was first elected.

His bill has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, which has not taken it up, and certainly will not. The Democrats are not going to let the Republicans write tax policy on their watch. He only has two co-sponsors.

McCotter surely knows full well that this bill has no chance of going anywhere. His purpose, no doubt, is to win the hearts and minds of animal lovers everywhere. “Thad McCotter is on our side,” they will say, and he will pretend to sadly rue the fact that his colleagues in Congress did not see the wisdom of carving out a special tax break for pet owners.

It wins him brownie points while costing nothing more than the time for a staffer to draft the language and the ink to print it in the Congressional Record and the effort of the House to refer it to the committee where it will certainly die.

Stop talking about this like it’s an actual thing.

July 3, 2010 at 8:07 am
(151) Rich says:

I am retired and while I could use the tax break like many of you, I agree with the comments of the very few who are against this tax break. I feel like I’m am shooting myself in the foot by not thinking of myself first ( not my typical nature). However, this country is way to far in debt to be looking at options to create more tax breaks. It should be considered discriminatory if we create tax breaks for people who have dogs, and not do the same for cat owners. We also own a couple of cats as well, and I don’t want them to feel cheated. Certainly we would have to write in breaks for owners of birds, and then the ever costly turtles, lizards, snakes, etc. etc. etc. If you brought a pet into the family thinking it was not going to cost you money, you need to get yourself some counseling. If you new it was going cost you money then quit looking for a free ride. If our government does not find ways to reduce costs, and then gives us pet owners breaks, they will eventually have to find a way to raise taxes in other areas which ultimately might affect you and if not, it means that your share of the countries tax burden is now going to belong to someone else. There are adults that have more kids than they can afford, and evidently have no clue on how to prevent that from happening, or consider it a means to getting benefits from our government that the rest of us have to fork over. I’m thinking that if you brought a breathing life into your home, then you need to accept the responsibility for its provisions. And by the way, I am neither a republican or a democrat. I walk on top of that fence.

July 3, 2010 at 10:25 am
(152) Greg says:

This is pretty outrageous. Why should people get tax benefits for owning animals? Those of you who are for this tax break should stop and think for just a moment about what that really means.

July 4, 2010 at 12:21 am
(153) Mona says:

I think this would be a great idea, however, it must
include cats too! We have weathered 2 cats with cancer
(unfortunuatly we lost them both)….now we have one
with asthma & one prone to dental disease. Our last
visit to the vet was $503!!!! Everytime we bring one to
the vets (we have 3 Aby’s) we cringe when we’re
presented with the bill & we always say we wish that
we could deduct the medical expenses from our taxes!
But, there should be specific rules in place otherwise, you
know the drill, there is always someone who is more than
ready to take advantage & milk the system.

July 4, 2010 at 9:36 pm
(154) chezsan says:

On the gambling deductions – you can only deduct gambling losses to offset gambling wins that you have to pay taxes on (over $1200 at a time).

I think that this is a really good idea as long as they close up the loopholes.

July 5, 2010 at 6:08 pm
(155) IvanG says:

As someone who is allergic to dogs and cats, I see this as a terrible idea. In effect, it would require me to pay higher taxes to subsidize people who have pets. How about letting me deduct the cost of over-the-counter allergy medications?

July 6, 2010 at 6:54 am
(156) Ann says:

My little dogs are extremely expensive and I love them dearly. One of them has major food allergies and has cost me over $1200 in vet bills this year, money which I had trouble finding, but I am willing to sacrifice for them. Having said that, I think this is a terrible idea. As others have pointed out, if you reduce taxes in one area, you have to increase them somewhere else. Maybe we could increase taxes on my 92 year old mother or cut out medicaid for poor children to make up the difference. Let’s get real folks.

July 6, 2010 at 8:46 am
(157) dale.streichert says:

Louis I am NOT CRAZY!! My grandson is autistic and the dog my daughter has helps to calm him many times over and I feel since she got the dog he has been alot calmer. I feel that since we send billions overseas for people we’ll never see a tax deduction for dog/pet owners is a GREAT idea right now….

July 6, 2010 at 8:56 am
(158) Tess says:

What a wonderful idea! Everyone knows that if you want more of something, give a tax incentive. Maybe if this act passes some people will get off their butts, head to a shelter, and adopt a few!

July 6, 2010 at 9:59 am
(159) Paul Hoppes says:

Please pass this bill, I’ve spent $9,000 on my dog to replace her bad knees joints at 2 years old. She is a large part of our lives and any help would be wonderful. I bet you can’t look her in hte eyes and say no!!!!!!!!!!!

July 6, 2010 at 11:23 am
(160) Dan Keating says:

“Really, this is not much different than deducting moving expenses, charitable donations or gambling losses (yes, you really can deduct gambling losses. . . surprisingly).” Come again? The reason moving expenses are deductible is to recognize that humans need to move periodically to obtain employment and thus income that can be taxed. The reason charitible contributions are deductible is to incent people to take their hard earned money and apply to benefit the less fortunate. Gambling losses are only deductible to the extent you have gambling income, so that a person that spends a $1000 on lottery tickets doesn’t pay income tax if he or she only wins $900. All of you readily incur the expense of owning a pet becasue it benefits you. That’s why I have pets. I’m hard pressed, however, why my fellow Americans should subsidize me for an expense that I voluntarily incur and whose benefits to society, beyond the joy the owner gets, are marginal. Stop pampering your paets and save a child.

July 6, 2010 at 3:53 pm
(161) pegs says:

Please make it only for LEGAL pets. That is to say pets that are registered in their city. Is that total expenses or per animal. There has to be a way to keep this from being profitable. Perhaps a special licensing/registration of rescue sourcing since they are likely to have the highest expenses.
Such a great idea though. Hope it makes it.

July 6, 2010 at 9:52 pm
(162) Carole says:

I am a cat owner because we travel to much/full time RV’rs to own dogs any more. I would hope this would include cats. We are a 50 something years married couple who never had children. I have paid thousand over a lifetime for school taxes,child support programs, welfare programs etc.. and never benefited one cent from any of them. All my cats are rescue and fixed. It would sure be nice to be able to take them to the vet on a regular basis, not just when we think one of them is critically ill. Even if this dose not include cats I hope you dog owners (especially those with rescue dogs get some help)

July 7, 2010 at 12:27 am
(163) Diane says:

Absolutely, YES!!!!!
Millions of pets need homes and love.
With escalating costs many pet owners or those who wish to own pets cannot afford to do so, this would definitely be a step in the right direction.

July 7, 2010 at 1:24 am
(164) Andy says:

I could foresee people abusing this though. I’d imagine they would put a cap on it per family. Why don’t we give tax deductions to car owners? Auto’s can become fairly expensive with repairs and maintenance. What about people who use electricity? How about people who walk? Shoes, socks…in soles, massages! That can add up. The majority of America can walk. This is dumb.

July 7, 2010 at 2:55 am
(165) Lance says:

I am against this for one simple reason: there would be millions of pets chained into a back yard and ignored and forgotten in misery just for the sake of the tax benefit… money which would not go to veterinary care of pet food, but into alcohol and big-screen TVs. This bill would not improve animals’ lives. It would make more of them suffer. It would incentivize people to cause that suffering.

Pets are a commitment, not a meal ticket.

July 7, 2010 at 9:30 am
(166) Jane says:

A tax deduction requires tax payers to pay for my pets. I don’t think that’s right or fair. I should pay for my own pet and consider that pets are an expense before adopting or buying one.

July 7, 2010 at 4:52 pm
(167) JudyT says:

To all the people who say that animals should be their expense….why not help people who have pets but can’t have kids. Parents get a tax deduction for having kids, and well, no one forces them to have kids, do they? The largest part of my property tax is the school tax and I don’t have kids, but I have to pay for someone else’s kids to go to FREE school. Why not give me a break and let me deduct my animals yearly medical expenses. If not, take away tax deductions for children.. pay for your own kids, you chose to have them!

July 7, 2010 at 7:48 pm
(168) annie says:

It’s about time. For those of us that love our 4 legged friends they are our family, or children for those that cannot have children. We come home and they are there, they don’t argue or talk back, they only know unconditional love.

July 7, 2010 at 8:04 pm
(169) trish says:

The government is broke and taxing people left and right and now they are giving out tax deductions for luxuries? If you can’t afford a pet, then don’t get one. Even as a pet owner, this is the most ludicrious idea ever. Pets aren’t people. They are luxuries or hobbies. Crazy crazy idea – this representative is a clown. Glad he doesn’t represent me. Of course there are exceptions, such as seeing eye dogs and the like. However, in these cases, it seems to make sense that they be treated in the same manner as other medical expenses.

July 8, 2010 at 9:23 am
(170) Wes Harvey says:

We have too many deductions in our tax code as it is. I feel we should move to a flat rate – corporate and individual.

July 8, 2010 at 11:19 am
(171) Business Websites says:

I don’t think most people here understand what a deduction is… no one is being handed $3500. You are allowed to deduct up to $3500 which might be the equivalent of about $1000 in money NOT going to the government.

That being said…this bill…like all bills…should be paid for. Simply figure out how much revenue would be lost by this bill and then cut something somewhere to make up for it. How about we close a base or two in Germany? Bring our troops home…do we really need troops stationed all over world all the time? How about deciding whether we should have a National Education Bureau or a State Bureau…but not pay for both? There’s a million ways that our government wastes our money.

Anyway, when deciding what you are for or against, just remember…it is YOUR money first. Then, the government takes it and wastes most of it.

Ideally…lets just drop the income tax and all the games that come with it and just have a national sales tax. Less games…less paperwork…more efficiency.

July 8, 2010 at 8:07 pm
(172) scott s says:

im in for that.we spend so much money on health care and food for our dogs. they are our family. i even want a bill past for these pricks that harm or kill animals. it should be the same for a human.

July 8, 2010 at 11:55 pm
(173) Rick Boatwright says:

I guess I am a little surprised just a few days after they announce taxing prosthetic devices for Vets who have lost portions of their body. This is our new health care fiasco. Can someone tell me who is watching the asylum

July 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm
(174) r kidd says:

Great idea, then these welfare mommies can quit having kids to make money, they can just adopt a dog.

July 9, 2010 at 6:14 pm
(175) Catherine says:

I have one point to clarify with folks who think this would be a government giveaway:

All this bill would mean is that pet owners wouldn’t have to pay taxes on up to $3,500 of the income they use to pay for eligible pet expenses. (For example, if you make $30,000 a year and have $2,000 in eligible expenses, you would pay federal taxes on $28,000.) The actual benefit to the pet owner would be just a fraction of the deducted amount.

And it could actually result in an overall savings to federal and local governments, if greater pet ownership resulted in improved physical and mental health (there are many stories about how suicidal pet owners decided not to go through with it out of concern for their dog or cat), reduced need for animal control services, and decreased disease risk from feral animals.

July 9, 2010 at 7:39 pm
(176) Mila says:

That’s great how do we get that for kittens that we love?

July 9, 2010 at 9:16 pm
(177) Louie says:

Our dog is nearly 20 years old and we are caring for him as one of our children. Everyone loves him and I know that he considers himself a member of this family. This is an idea long overdue!

July 10, 2010 at 9:13 am
(178) Fladabosco says:

Lots of people own them and we feel nice, therefore the following should be tax deductible:

Bedsheets, beer (finally), kittens, chocolate ice cream, Kleenexô, love notes, socks, burritos, underwear, nose hair clippers, lawn chairs, toothbrushes, lattes, marijuana, picnics, cars, darts for throwing at pictures of (Sarah Palin or Obama, take your pick), pictures to throw darts at, fried potatoes, wet naps, ibuprofen, a posse, air freshener, Preperation H…

July 10, 2010 at 9:19 am
(179) chad says:

Meanwhile, the country is going bankrupt. All things eventually die. It’s part of life. Maybe if you care about your pets health so much, you should make sure you can afford one and feed it natural homemade food instead of feeding it the human equivalent of cereal for every meal.

August 12, 2010 at 4:34 pm
(180) Randy says:

I love my dogs very much and have been an animal lover all of my life. I am totally against this as it will only lead to dogs leading a terrible life as people get them only as a way to get a tax break. I already feel for the ones that people get only to stay in thier backyards and be ignored. I do not know how you would be able to stop that from happening.

August 12, 2010 at 5:15 pm
(181) sly says:

I am all for it, I cant get a break anywhere so why not. I have 2 dogs as well as some parrots. My dog has cancer and the treatments and blood work are making us spend all kinds of money. Our dog is our family member, we don’t have kids. We pay high taxes to schools for everyone else’s kids so I would love something that gives me and my hubby a break once in awhile. I never understood why if you have the kids, you get the breaks and the people who don’t have them have to pay more. Fair is Fair, let me deduct their medical bills. The only word of caution I would have is that people should have to prove by receipts that the money did got towards veterinary care, otherwise people will start to adopt pets just for the money and not give them the proper care that they need. Keep receipts for the expenses and i vote yes!

August 12, 2010 at 5:24 pm
(182) sly says:

Colin,,,,You are the reason we need something like this. Your dog will be an expense that will become cost prohibitive to keep him alive, so you will have him killed????
If you brought him into your home, its your job to figure it out and why not let the gov reimburse x amount of spending on bills if you can prove you spent the money, If you say all the ridiculous ways they spend money, you would hope for this to be one of the less crazy things they waste money on. Pets keep people happy, they help people with depression, ocd, and other ailments to feel better. They contribute to society in many ways, they even help out soldiers, the fire department, police departments, disabled, elderly etc…..
They matter and deserve to live a full natural life.

August 12, 2010 at 7:23 pm
(183) MaxSt says:

Great! A tax break for dogs. Yet people want to soak it to the rich so much it is a common argument used against the Fair Tax and often uses deductions as a basis. They want to soak it to the rich. but a dog can get a tax break. Go figure.

“A poor man hiring = two men begging.”

August 13, 2010 at 8:33 am
(184) John Rogers says:

This is the dumbest thing I have seen all day.

August 14, 2010 at 7:57 am
(185) Bud says:

Dogs are the nicest people I know!

August 14, 2010 at 10:00 am
(186) Yasam Dobro says:

It’s not in our best interest as a nation. We need tax revenue to pay down our debt, and this is just a foolish and short sighted drain on the treasury. We have to stop being so irresponsible as a people. Taxes are unpleasant for sure, but it’s time to do what must be done; the alternative is disaster and ruin.

August 16, 2010 at 9:27 pm
(187) Matt W says:

Service dogs I can agree with. Other than that you should not get a tax break for owning any animal.

Can I get a tax break for my TV? I like watching it. It was expensive and my TV service is not cheap.

Oh, that’s right, I choose to have that.

I like dogs but to treat them as humans makes no sense. And if you can equate dogs with people I feel sorry for your dog and your family and friends.

August 17, 2010 at 12:34 am
(188) Fred and Ethyl says:

Two paws up.
Our mistress spends $2000 a year on Fred’s arthritis meds and my “head” medicine plus all the doggy stuff (flea,etc.)

August 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm
(189) Beverly Pollard says:

As a proud and happy “Beagle Owner,” I think this is an idea whose time has come. Those of us who have dogs, and take proper care of them, could really use this benefit, most especially if we adopted our pets. Responsible dog owners are helping to prevent more stray pets from populating our communities.

August 17, 2010 at 10:08 pm
(190) Rick S says:

From what I’ve read, that “socialized medicine” in England will pay for all expenses including the purchase of a dog for those over 60.
As I understand it, the British Health Service, or whatever it’s called, believes that elderly people are more active and healthy with a dog; they get out and walk their friend, thereby getting exercise and also don’t just stay in the house and mope.
Plus, if one of their dogs is like one of ours (“Beau” the Bichon Poodle cross), he’s the neighborhood Ambassadog.
He knows every dog, cat and person for blocks around and people EXPECT to get to pet that curly haired white fellow when my wife takes him out walking.

August 17, 2010 at 11:30 pm
(191) Renee says:

If you DECREASE the amount you PAY by $3500 that is called a CREDIT. If you DECREASE the amount your tax is BASED upon by $3500, that is called a DEDUCTION.

Thanks for making my POINT, by the way.

August 17, 2010 at 11:35 pm
(192) Renee says:

Oh and to those who talk about how kids should continue to be deductible because they’ll grow up to be tax payers too (so those of us without them should continue to pay for them to go to school) What kind of refund do I get if they grow up to be thugs and criminals and don’t pay taxes or if they do poorly in school? Oh right, I don’t. I get to keep paying for them when they are in prison or on welfare.

August 20, 2010 at 8:19 am
(193) Claude says:

We have reacued 10 dogs and 7 cats, we try to educate people on the importance of speying and neutering to control the over population and the local animal shelter would not have to put down so many cats an dogs, it would be of great help if tht bill is passed.

August 20, 2010 at 9:33 pm
(194) KC in VA says:

I continue to shell out my tax $$$ for you people to be able to take what is it now, $3500 per kid until they’re at least 18 freakin’ years old? Well fine, you can shell out your tax $$ for ME for a change….

August 20, 2010 at 11:02 pm
(195) seth says:

Well, let me be the lone voice of dissent. I choose to have a dog. I love my dog. I think a pet deduction is a bad idea.

In essence you are saying that non-pet owners will have to pay more taxes so that pet owners can pay less. THis is more stupide liberal thinking. If you choose to have a pet pay your own way. Dont ask for a reduction of taxes. This reduction always comes at somone elses expense.

Some day we will have to spend what we make at the federal level. The pet deduction will have to be made up with an aditional tax or reduction in spending.

August 20, 2010 at 11:06 pm
(196) seth says:

It is a stupid idea. Owning a pet is your choice. I have one. It is not a good idea to shift costs from pet owners to non pet owners. Pay your own way.

THinking like this is what got us into this mess. The govt has no business making pet ownerhsip policy. Stupid stupid stupid.

August 21, 2010 at 12:01 am
(197) Tim says:

I absolutely support it. I lost my buddy Jake The Wonder Dog in June, but much of the reason I haven’t started actively looking for another one is the $3,000 hit my savings took in trying to save him. This bill would go a long way in allowing me the financial freedom to rescue another dog.

August 23, 2010 at 5:35 pm
(198) DarronFreed says:

My dog serves as an early warning alert system for anyone entering my property — basically a security system. Although I have never done it, I could see how this sort of thing could be justified as a tax deduction, just like a monitored security system if you run your business out of your home. I probably don’t take as many deductions as I have available to me though… I just keep hoping for a planet killer type meteor to strike DC and kill off all the jackbooted IRS thugs and the congress-critters that have made our tax laws so convoluted that only tax lawyers can understand them.

August 23, 2010 at 7:27 pm
(199) Steve says:

I believe that Bicycles should be a tax deduction … they give us exercise and help us keep healthy. A blue one will also keep men Happy. A pink one will help women be happy! A rainbow colored one will help keep the gay and lesbians happy!
I think we need a Food Deduction. If you eat, you get the deduction. Eating is necessary (not in excess) for health.
I feel that dogs carry diseases, poop on other peoples lawns, etc. Thus dogs need a tax!
Folks without dogs should get a Tax Deduction because they get depressed from picking up other peoples dog SCAT (spelled _hit)!

Seriously, do you folks understand we have a national economic emergency!
Love your dogs – OK! Make me pay your fair share of taxes – WRONG! I am too busy picking up your dog poo to earn the extra money!

August 23, 2010 at 9:20 pm
(200) Michael says:

As much as I love my dog, and as much as I’d like some help with the expenses that have been associated with his getting older and needing more medical care (including two surgeries), this is the kind of “feel good” proposal that has turned out tax code into an unworkable pile of swiss cheese, with every rat advocating to protect his or her own hole in the cheese from the tax man. Don’t give us more gimmicks or special breaks for favored taxpayers. Close the loopholes and lower rates across the board. It’s fairer, less complicated, less expensive to administer, and most of all doesn’t pervert economic incentives.

August 24, 2010 at 7:15 am
(201) calico says:

“It is a stupid idea. Owning a pet is your choice.”

And having kids is your choice. Why should my income go to subsidize your large family?

Having a house is a choice, yet it’s a huge deduction.

Abusive farms who run factory farms make a choice, and not only can they take deductions on all their expenses in abusing & killing the animals — The Farm Bill pays them to do it (subsidies)!

This is what’s wrong with the tax code. Every little special interest group, industry, or politician’s friend has their say. Next thing we know even a life-time CPA can’t figure all of it out. And in the end those with the biggest friends in Washington get the biggest cuts. Or the people making the money illegally pay no taxes at all. Why can’t we just have either one flat tax or one national sales tax?

August 24, 2010 at 9:10 pm
(202) Ralph says:

I think that this ACT should be passed.I own 2 dogs and 2 cats and the cost of care is expensive. This is a great ACT and could really help our economy as well! I would really like to see this ACT pass!

August 25, 2010 at 8:24 am
(203) Ed says:

This sounds like a great idea. I think that it should apply to pets that are from licensed animal rescue shelters only. When you save a dog there should be some kind of assistance from the government to help maintain it.

If you go to a high cost breeder then you can pay the bills on your own.

August 25, 2010 at 2:05 pm
(204) mikemike says:

Freeloading dog owners! you are all the real strain on our economy!
With that said… I have a dog and would love this.

August 25, 2010 at 4:34 pm
(205) PetLover says:

Will I be able to deduct care for my pet donkey?

August 25, 2010 at 4:44 pm
(206) whynot says:

You can get a deduction for your donkey but I was wondering how about for my gerbils, they need help after some fun times?

August 25, 2010 at 5:12 pm
(207) Marolyn Ferguson says:

I have a 14 & 1/2 year old dog that I bottle raised. She is like one of my kids. She has had epilepsy since she was 3 years old. So, over the years her medical costs with seizer meds, thyroid meds, flea prevention, & heart worm prevention have cost a fortune. It would be wonderful to claim her on my taxes.

August 25, 2010 at 5:46 pm
(208) Allen says:

It sounds like a good idea for dog owners – but – is it strictly for dog owners? Is this just a method to find dog owners to make sure everyone pays their license fees? Maybe this is to entice pet owners to spend even more money on their pets? If I can deduct it I can spend more. What are the chances that the vet will now just increase his fee because owners are willing to spend more because now they can deduct it? Someone has to pay for it and you may end up paying twice. Once in increased taxes and again in higher vet bills. I love my pets dearly and it sounds good to be able to deduct but I don’t expect other taxpayers to pay for their care.

August 25, 2010 at 5:47 pm
(209) Pi says:

I’ve loved my animals like family but if someone pays thousands of dollars for a dog or cat, he/she should have to pay a luxury tax.

August 25, 2010 at 5:49 pm
(210) Toastie says:

People generally don’t like deductions that they’d never take advantage of themselves. I hope the few people who have pets and still don’t like this are against most other existing deductions. I respect a consistent position on the issue. Most tax deductions are an attempt at social-engineering–to encourage having children, owning a home, donating to charity, pursuing higher education–basically activities that are understood to be beneficial to a healthy society. There are lots of good arguments that pet ownership falls into this category. But it’s not the most pressing issue of our time, for sure.

If economic studies can demonstrate that such a deduction would be beneficial to the economy (through less burden on animal control agencies and savings to human healthcare costs), it makes a lot of sense. But just the fact that I love my animals like family and spend a lot of money on them doesn’t justify a tax write-off.

August 25, 2010 at 6:07 pm
(211) Terry says:

First of all, everyone please recognize that a tax deduction is not “getting back my money”. It may reduce your taxes for that year, so less money going out, but probably not on a dollar per dollar basis. And not when you need it – which is when the medical care is required. I have 4 animals, of which 2 rescues and one senior cat with issues ran me 5K a year for 4 years with surgeries and treatments – I was lucky to be able to afford it – but the government is not responsible for my choice to a)adopt b)treat c)keep these animals. The tax credit would not make a difference in my choices. IT would not encourage adoption, folks that want to scam can create an imaginary pet to go with the imaginary vet bills. And I don’t want my shelter advertising, “Adopt a dog/cat! Get a tax Break!” Do not believe this is a necessary or good bill – just one that would get the senator proposing it re-elected.

August 25, 2010 at 6:17 pm
(212) Paul Scheufler says:

Caring for a dog is just like caring for a child. My dog is as much a family member as any person. It gives unconditional love and support to my family. A tax benefit would make caring for my dog more affordable.

August 25, 2010 at 6:26 pm
(213) Lady Lisa says:

I’m all for this tax break as long as it’s open to both dogs and cats as a cat is just as expensive as a dog, if not more because of all the cat litter that I have to purchase.

August 25, 2010 at 6:44 pm
(214) paul ohearn says:

pets not only give us love, they also help to preserve human life. five years ago my wife almost died from enal failure. because she had paylon, our gorgeous chi with her when i was out earning a living she survived. he kept her company the 10, 11 or 12 hours a day that i was gone when there was no family or friends to be with her. it almost killed her last year when paylon died of a bad heart at less than half his normal life span. five weeks later we got another chi. we both love him very much and i can’t count the number of times my wife has said that she would go crazy when i;m not home 4 or 5 days a week for 10 or 11 hours per day if she didn’t have our chi. GOD bless our dogs and pets

August 25, 2010 at 7:01 pm
(215) ZackG says:

No. Just because own a pet you believe this is a great idea because you can make money off of it. Stop it. You haven’t earned it. You chose to get a pet, you chose to spend the money on them, you chose to do all of that and its not right that those who choose not to own a pet now have to fit a larger portion of the bill. Stop being so opportunistic and be sensible and fair.

August 25, 2010 at 9:37 pm
(216) Phyllis Truitt says:

Yes, I wish we could claim our pets on our taxes. I spend about $300.00 a month for veternary expenses.

August 25, 2010 at 10:48 pm
(217) Ruby Cheung says:

It’s an ideal thought to have the government paying for our pets. However, there will be lots of drawbacks if we look beyond the scene.

I am concerned that there may arouse the greedy thought of some people to keep a pet or two just to get money from the goverment. Also, those upper class pet owners can certainly afford to have a pet but is fair for the tax payers if these well off majority would use the tax money, too?

All rules which are seemingly good may not work unless people are honest and conscientious in living with integrity and righteousness.

August 26, 2010 at 12:47 am
(218) Doug says:

I have taken in 4 strays & they all are my best friends.I have done without to give them what they need.
This tax bill would help so much in taking care of my buddys.

August 26, 2010 at 11:49 am
(219) JAK says:

It’s about time somebody in Congress proposed tax changes that every American can be proud of. And it comes at such a good time. Just when I thought this Congress couldn’t do much more to embarrass me. Thaddeus saves the day.

It would be unfair, however, to limit this wonderful deduction just for the owners of dogs. To avoid discrimination, and the litigation therefrom, cat ownership would also have to qualify for the deduction. And, of course, birds as well as fish should qualify. All these can soothe the weary taxpayer.

Afterall, isn’t the individual taxpayer’s well-being the purpose of the income tax anyway. But, in my very humble opinion, Thad stopped to early. Another equally beneficial deduction to a stressed-out taxpayer would be a deduction for the cost of a hot fudge sundae when that taxpayer is tense. It too can be of great relief to a person suffering from life’s many problems. And chocolates seem to improve the well-being of so many.

Thank God we finally have leaders with the understanding of what we need to properly guide this Country. Hats off to my new hero Thaddeus McCotter who understands us and understands what is needed in this Country.

August 26, 2010 at 4:53 pm
(220) EPR says:

It always seems like a good idea to offer people more tax relief. However, the IRS is overwhelmed as it is trying to accommodate the many, many tax provisions that are already (and recently) put in place. The more work they’re given, the longer it takes for things to process — like our tax refunds! Rather than having high tax rates and numerous tax relief programs to offset them, the best idea would be to simplify the entire tax system and give everyone lower taxes, eliminating the need for so many (confusing) tax breaks.

August 26, 2010 at 5:06 pm
(221) Bob says:

Sounds like a great way to avoid being a taxpayer. Just get
a bunch of pets and get deductions for them just like welfare.

August 27, 2010 at 4:44 pm
(222) kls27 says:

The law will give the type of people who feel that 28%-35% of $3,500 a year is a lot of money to spend on a pet more incentive to get one. Pets deserve to be with owners who can can easily afford and support them – not the type of people who will hesitate to pay for medical treatment if their dog breaks its leg or gets cancer.

August 28, 2010 at 10:44 am
(223) PDuff says:

Stupid idea, your going to get taxed the same if not more some other way. The tax code is tough enough to understand, so let’s not add more headaches to that time of year.

August 30, 2010 at 7:05 am
(224) Jason says:

Terrible idea. Lets stop using the tax code to incentivize and create distortions in pricing.

You want a dog. Great. But dont do it for the tax credit. Honestly, people, do we really need more complications to our tax code?

Stop thinking selfishly, think about the cost to our country (tax revenues) rather than, hey, i have a pet, i can get some money back now. This is ridiculous.

August 30, 2010 at 4:38 pm
(225) Steve says:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Pets are optional, even if pleasant, and I say this as the owner of 2 dogs.

For guide dogs and other types of “assistant” roles, sure, a deduction.

August 31, 2010 at 10:56 am
(226) cletus says:

it is about time. we own 4 dogs and the vets are recomending we get hospital insurance for them

August 31, 2010 at 5:22 pm
(227) Julian Aguirre says:

My wife and I have cared for many lost animals for their remaining years because of owners allowing them to run free, without proper diets and medical care. We never expected to be reinbursed for any of the costs, but if this bill passes it will help to encourage people to invest in the care of pets that are abandoned on highsways and left to fend for food. Animals such as cats and dogs deserve love and a good home, they give so much to families and ask so little in return.

January 6, 2011 at 6:14 am
(228) www.debtadviceni.com says:

The fiscal irresponsibility of this is amazing. The taxpayers should subsidize veterinarians. Donít you understand that is what this is all about.
Demin Martin

January 27, 2011 at 3:53 pm
(229) Carlawpg says:

To all Canadian Citizens,

I was wondering how many people would be prompted to purchase an animal from a shelter if there was a new tax break for this specific purchase. This could help close down several puppy mills, because people would be more apt to buy a shelter pet, instead of looking elsewhere. What do you think? Would you sign a petition for this to happen?

April 1, 2011 at 4:32 pm
(230) Diana says:

Although a great idea there would be individuals who would start buying up dogs to mistreat them just for the write off….

June 21, 2011 at 9:42 pm
(231) Vicky says:

I think this is a great idea, and it would encourage many people to adopt homeless pets from our shelters that are so overcrowded, with dogs being euthanized every day. I am actually shocked that our government has not adopted this legislation, and we are supposed to be a humanitarian country. We are always helping other countries in need, but yet we don’t help our own people enough. It makes no sense.

June 21, 2011 at 9:54 pm
(232) Vicky says:

Plus, who would abuse the system if the tax deduction is for “Pet Expenses”…this is not a child tax credit, it is for medical bills!! That means those who truly care for their dogs, enough to spend money on surgeries or other vet bills would be getting much needed help.

July 18, 2011 at 10:39 pm
(233) Renie says:

How about a tax deduction for adopting a shelter pet? I’m appalled how much it costs to adopt a homeless dog. We are encouraged to adopt, but look how much it costs. I’m in a position to give a home to several animals, but I can’t afford the adoption fees. We rather put them down than give them to people who have the home and love for them. A tax deduction, or better credit, would go a long way to helping these amazing, deserving creatures.

September 28, 2011 at 2:50 pm
(234) Karen says:

I own 4 dogs, all rescues and 1 cat. This would help me out a lot on their vet bills. I think this is great idea and animals are a lot more emotionally satisfying than most children!!!

December 2, 2011 at 1:01 pm
(235) Will says:

I have to agree with Julie — if anything, the tax credit ought to be for those adopting, not just owning, a pet. As it is this wouldn’t incentivize any positive behavior past simply owning a pet, which seems unnecessary to write into the tax code.

December 22, 2011 at 11:58 am
(236) CC says:

I’m with Louis. A pet is a choice. If you buy a car you can expect expenses will include gas, tires, maintenance. Buy a pet expect to feed, house and vet it. People, if I take a deduction for my pets you will pick up a 28,000 tax break for me. (kids are only $3700.00 and they are potential future tax payers) This is ridiculous. It would advocate animal hoarding for financial gain. Where has the responsibility on any level of this? The I WANT generation is getting out of hand. Geesh.

February 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm
(237) Dalton Noble says:

Why should non pet owners subsidize pet owners? Many arguments above disturbingly focus on the concept that something that is good should be a tax deduction. So a pet is good for someone (emotionally, healthwise, etc) and therefore you should be able to take money from other taxpayers. Do you honestly think that is a good argument? Because that is the one you’re implicitly making.

March 18, 2012 at 8:43 pm
(238) Matt g says:

There are so many reasons for this bill. First there is the positive Heath benefits to have a pet. There is also the economic value. Pet owners support their local pet shop and generally spend a lot of money the community. The local vet and everyone that worked there would also benefit. Having to decided to put down your otherwise very young and healthy friend helps no one. I would vote in favor for tax relief on medical expenses.

September 28, 2012 at 4:10 pm
(239) Candy says:

Idea solid, details unknown. Could be used to the advantage of everyone if done right.

September 30, 2012 at 2:51 am
(240) Leather says:

Hello would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with? I’m
looking to start my own blog in the near future but I’m having a difficult time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design and style seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique.
P.S Sorry for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

November 29, 2012 at 5:49 am
(241) Pet Owner v Children says:

I am 60 years old and by choice have never had children. I have always been amazed that people such as myself are taxed each and every year, year after year, to pay for those people who have decided to have, children, even when they cannot afford them. In my express opinion, many of these so called parents with children, place an additional burden upon EVERY TAXPAYER, because many of these parents continue to have children for the government benefits awarded to them for each child, whether legitimate or illegitimate and not only do they collect food stamps, AFDC, WIC and many other programs that they might be eligible for and think that we owe it to them. Lets us not forget the almost free government housing for these families based upon their ability to pay. Now mind you, the childless are also taxed via ad Valorem property taxes, to pay for these same families with children even though WE do not have children in the system. The other problem that I see, is that many of these children are from such low income families (3rd and 4th generation I might add) and were taught how to live off the government. Many do not have the home support of a two parent family, or if there are two parents generally one or both generally do not work and many are involved in illegal trafficking of some sort or another and are generally looking for a fast way to make a buck. Just let one of their children be corrected by a teacher in class and the next thing you know, there is a lawsuit filed against the school, which in turn increases our tax load for the next year.

November 29, 2012 at 5:51 am
(242) Pet Owner v Children says:

Mind you, I agree that all children deserve an education, but lets exempt those from paying taxes who do not have children in the system. Many of these impoverished people are also the ones that know of every free or reduced program that they can get. They go to the emergency rooms and demand to be treated for something simple that could have been handled by a pediatrician at a much cheaper price. They also clog the ER which in turn makes truly sick people have to wait to be treated and yet these people that are made to wait, HAVE INSURANCE and pay the deductibles before leaving the ER. What do the others pay — NOTHING. There are more than enough free government programs for those with children and guess who pays for it all???? Those of us who do not have children by choice and those that responsibly have only the number of children that they can comfortably pay for!! Lets also not forget the Widows/Widowers of deceased service men and women who have to be, practically destitute before they are entitled to receive any compensation or help from the government for their loved one giving their ALL to protect our freedom. Somehow asking for deductions of documented medical expenses for our pets, which are our children, seems to be a minimal request for pet owners, since many of us are paying for children who are not our own through taxation. I think that allowing for documented medical expenses for our pet children is not nearly as out of line as parents of children who are on any and all free or reduced government entitlement programs and expecting those without children to support their children through taxation.

November 29, 2012 at 5:56 am
(243) Pet Owner v Children - Cont. says:

, I agree that all children deserve an education, but lets exempt those from paying taxes who do not have children in the system. Many of these impoverished people are also the ones that know of every free or reduced program that they can get. They go to the emergency rooms and demand to be treated for something simple that could have been handled by a pediatrician at a much cheaper price. They also clog the ER which in turn makes truly sick people have to wait to be treated and yet these people that are made to wait, HAVE INSURANCE and pay the deductibles before leaving the ER. What do the others pay — NOTHING. There are more than enough free government programs for those with children and guess who pays for it all???? Those of us who do not have children by choice and those that responsibly have only the number of children that they can comfortably pay for!! Lets also not forget the Widows/Widowers of deceased service men and women who have to be, practically destitute before they are entitled to receive any compensation or help from the government for their loved one giving their ALL to protect our freedom. Somehow asking for deductions of documented medical expenses for our pets, which are our children, seems to be a minimal request for pet owners, since many of us are paying for children who are not our own through taxation. I think that allowing for documented medical expenses for our pet children is not nearly as out of line as parents of children who are on any and all free or reduced government entitlement programs and expecting those without children to support their children through taxation.

May 21, 2013 at 5:35 pm
(244) shelly echols says:

I came across this site and wanted to add my 2 cents. We have two autistic people in our household and that is the VERY REASON why we bought them a dog. My son would find it very hard not having his companion when he gets home from school as the dog doesn’t degrade him like the students at school. If there’s anything I can do to help please let me know. Even when flying our dog is allowed to be out of his kennel and on his lap at all times.

May 29, 2013 at 3:14 am
(245) DJZMAN says:

I think if the dog is a medical dog, like a seeing eye dog or a companion dog, then Yes its a medical instrument like a wheelchair is.

But so people dont abuse this it should need a RX writing by a Doc saying your Dog is a needed medical instrument. with out one then no tax write-offs.

June 9, 2013 at 2:47 am
(246) Colonel (Ret) David T. Ulmer says:

I an a Special Forces combat veteran of two wars and have a major problem with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I had a Service Dog for 16 years and was treated with total respect when I took my dog with me in restaurants, stores, etc. On 12Feb12 My Service Dog died and I was devistated and still morn her loss. She would sense that I was having a problem and she wouild push her noise against my face and lick me and make a small bark. Her actions got me out of the terrible flashbacks and bad dreams of my combat experience. She was the very best medicine for my PTSD and I am not ready to get another Service Dog at this time. I had her cremated and she is in a special place in my bedroom. Prior to her death I had doctors bills in excess of $4,000 and she was worth every expense. She was like a member of the family and it would have been great to have a law that allowed for a tax eduction. I loved her so much and would have paid any amount to help treat her. She was an angel and friendly to anyone and other pets. It has taken months to talk about her without crying.God spealled backwards is DOG. She was very very special and when the time comes for me to get another Service Dog I feel that none could ever meet her stardard of care for me. Sincerely, Colonel (Ret) David T. Ulmer, Special Forces, US Army.

January 9, 2014 at 10:53 pm
(247) jen marino says:

i truely believe our pets should have a tax write off. We spend so much money on our pets these days it is very worth it. I feel I have spent alone on my cat i have rescued over 1000 dollars the 600 was shots alone. When is it going to be a tax write off i would sleep so much better its now 2014 we need to really get it together.

February 25, 2014 at 8:32 pm
(248) Nancy says:

I think this would be a godsend to pet owners, especially when there are multiple animals in a household. I personally have five Pugs and a cat and I know it would help me out immensely. I’m all for it and I hope it gets passed sooner rather than later.

March 14, 2014 at 1:13 am
(249) Glenn says:

This bill would encourage seniors on SS to adopt a pet. A senior living alone would benefit from having a cat or dog for a companion, but those whose only income is SS could not afford a pet.

March 21, 2014 at 10:31 pm
(250) Nonoette says:

I take it that the bill was not passed and is not a tax write off yet. Do you still need us to write to our congresswo/man? If so please let me know, so I can start on them now with quite a few other people. There will be a lot of support from here in the south. Our Lil Man is our child because our human children are grown and gone. Thank you Lord for presenting me with such a loving son, again.

April 11, 2014 at 11:02 am
(251) Jennifer says:

I totally agree. My dogs were licking my face during many difficult times in my life. I cry just thinking about one of them getting sick, which is more than some people do over their own children. How is it that we are forced to pay for some families to live, eat, get medical attention, and have a free roof over their heads, and also go to public schools… while we struggle to take care of our own families and pets, and pets left on street: or injured in dog fights by the same people that we pay all their bills for. Not fair, at all.
We totally have EARNED a tax break for the animals we choose to spend our lives with. I love and can’t live without all my animals, but my Doberman and Pit-mix I would fight for. I can’t say the same for people who abuse our tax payers, or people who hurt any animal.

April 16, 2014 at 9:13 pm
(252) https://play.google.com says:

excellent issues altogether, you just won a new reader.
What could you suggest about your submit that you just made a few
days ago? Any certain?

April 17, 2014 at 2:05 am
(253) adidas ____ says:

What a stuff of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious
experience about unexpected emotions.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.