Why Should Pets Be Tax Deductible?
I choose to have a pet. Maybe you choose to have a boat. Why should I get to deduct the expenses for my dog from my taxes?
Somebody forwarded me this e-mail from the ASPCA. While it would be nice to have a few bucks off my taxes for my doggie expenses, it really doesn't seem fair:
Dear Animal Advocates,Introduced by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, H.R. 3501--known as the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years ("HAPPY") Act--is a federal bill that would reward responsible pet parents by allowing them to keep more money in their pockets come tax time.
We all want to give our animal companions the best care we possibly can, but it seems that pet care costs are always on the rise--and these days, it's harder than ever to stretch the family budget. That's why the ASPCA supports H.R. 3501, which would amend U.S. tax code to allow qualifying pet care expenses, including veterinary care, to be tax-deductible.
This means that when you prepare your income taxes, money you spent on pet care that year would count as non-taxable income--and you can deduct up to $3,500 per year!
Please help us support the HAPPY Act, H.R. 3501.
Yeah, on the surface it sounds like a ridiculous reason for a tax break - but frankly, I don't really care at this point about the "why," as long as I'm paying less in taxes.
JakeTaylor at September 24, 2009 8:47 AM
Aren't pets supposed to be good for your health and stuff, maybe they would cut down on health care costs?
NicoleK at September 24, 2009 8:47 AM
Wow.
No potential for fraud there, nope.
Steve Daniels at September 24, 2009 9:11 AM
This is for people who call themselves "pet parents" and refer to their dog as "my furry child".
I've spent more on healthcare for my dog this year than I have for myself. And while I am always up for any tax deduction there is, this one is inherently unfair. At least with a child the government is potentially getting a future taxpayer out of the deal. My dog's not gonna generate revenue for them any time soon.
brian at September 24, 2009 9:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/24/why_should_pets.html#comment-1669343">comment from brianWhen I got Lucy, she got very sick, and I had to spend $900 on (ugh!) a PET scan. (This is very funny unless you're the one who gets the bill for it.) Anyway, I waited until I could afford expenses for a pet, even expensive ones, before I got a pet. Isn't that what you should do?
P.S. I am not my dog's mom (although I can be a bitch to the deserving).
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2009 9:20 AM
Do I get a deduction for my lizard?
Roger at September 24, 2009 9:34 AM
In a way, it makes sense. Unlike boats or other luxury items, pets are out there breeding like crazy, so the more people that adopt one and care for it the better. Maybe we could get tax credits for adopting an illegal alien too.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2009 9:42 AM
The only comment that I want to make that hasn't been made (as the owner of 2 dogs, 2 horses and a cat this sounds great, but...wrong) is that the existence of the ASPCA and other such organizations shows that the government sees animals as different from boats. Those organizations already receive tax exempt status, which an organization to protect boats probably wouldn't (or would it?).
But yeah, lowering taxes = good. Lowering taxes for those of us who choose to have pets, not for those who choose to ride motorcycles = bad.
Kimberly at September 24, 2009 9:48 AM
This is the type of thing that makes me long for a Flat Tax.
Good Lord.
Micki at September 24, 2009 9:52 AM
Another point in favor of the deduction is that people have legal obligations toward their animals. Not as strong as those toward children, of course, but you can be prosecuted for pet abuse or neglect. A boat or other toy, by contrast, can be smashed to splinters with a sledgehammer if that somehow. . . floats your boat.
Rex Little at September 24, 2009 9:55 AM
"Unlike boats or other luxury items, pets are out there breeding like crazy, so the more people that adopt one and care for it the better" - lovelysoul
Good theory, but more realistically I think it will just encourage more backyard breeders. More animals = more deductions, and no one bats an eye at breeders who administer their own vaccines and other treatments. So who's to say these new backyard breeders are actually treating their animals or not - just to get an extra few bucks of deductions.
I can see the appeal of tax breaks - anything that would encourage some of my hick neighbors to spend money on actually taking care of their dogs definitely has an appeal.
Elle at September 24, 2009 9:56 AM
Elle, I agree. I think it should only be for people who adopt from shelters. Otherwise, you're creating a market for breeders. But if people are adopting an unwanted or abandoned pet from a shelter, it's not that different from foster parents, who I believe get tax credits - or should.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2009 10:01 AM
I'm annured to the screeching of the pet-owners and their insistence that their pets are little furry people and should be legally treated as such. If that were so, surely some of those crazy outfits they dress the little darlings in could be called child abuse.
I'm far more annoyed of the way legislators give cute, heart-tugging or outright manipulating names to the bills they present, inrended to allow a knee-jerk reaction to them and downplay the need to read it.
The PATRIOT act is a notorious example. I'm amazed the health care bill hasn't been renamed the Ted Kennedy memorial Health bill. Probably they're waiting for there to be just one, not to waste a good name.
If they could have gotten away it they'd call the next one the If-You-Don't-Agree-With-It-You're-Gay bill.
I insist the bills have a more accurate description of the contents, or have a large sign on the front cover reading "WARNING: Lark's Vomit"
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 24, 2009 10:24 AM
Oh pu-leeze! Animals are not kids and provide NO benefit to the state. I have a cat, and still think this is hogwash.
National sale tax!!! Get rid of the income tax!!! (that way I can buy used and never pay taxes again. In theory.)
momof4 at September 24, 2009 10:25 AM
I don't think that we should get a deduction for pet care, but if this were to pass, I'd take it... It is, of course, our choice to have dogs.
I agree that a deduction like this could encourage backyard breeding.
Our dogs have cost several thousands of dollars over the last year... The great dane had heart failure in November, which cost us roughly $2,200 in just two days: One night in the animal hospital, and additional care at the veterinary cardiologist. He has cardiologist appointments every 6 months ($200+), and just yesterday I spent $160 at a regular vet because he's got an infected scrape and an ear infection. We also spend about $350 a month on his medications (one, Pimobendan, is $240 a month for a dog his size.) The chihuahua had an injury late last year (another animal hospital trip); the mutt is pretty low-maintenance.
Anyway, husband and I choose to keep our animals, and we also chose a large breed that is prone to expensive health issues. I don't expect a tax break for that, because we didn't have to do it.
ahw at September 24, 2009 10:33 AM
Any reduction in taxes is good. Eliminating taxes would be even better. Let the damn government support itself with bake sales or something.
parabarbarian at September 24, 2009 10:42 AM
I can only think of a few instances where this might apply. Seeing eye dogs, seizure dogs, and therapy dogs as medical expenses that are not covered by insurance. I know a seizure dog runs in excess of $10,000. I can only imagine how much more a guide dog might be. But hey, if it helps make someone more independent and productive, why not? Also, hunting dogs as a business expense for someone who does guided hunts.
Other than that, a pet is a luxury. Or, as in our case, a dogsitting favor that has stretched into three years and running.
Juliana at September 24, 2009 10:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/24/why_should_pets.html#comment-1669371">comment from Vinnie BartilucciIf they could have gotten away it they'd call the next one the If-You-Don't-Agree-With-It-You're-Gay bill.
Great points, Vinnie, and the above is hilarious.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2009 10:52 AM
No, there should not be a tax deduction for pets. I'd say this is the most laughable idea proposed yet by Congress, but there are just so many from which to choose.
How about just lower our taxes and spend less?
Beth at September 24, 2009 10:58 AM
One of the problems with write-offs is that they only benefit people who have enough deductions to be worth itemizing, ie people who own a home on a mortgage or small business owners. So we're making this available to the middle class but something tells me that it's the poorer folks who need encouragement to pony up for the vet.
This week we spent about $1200 to find out that our cat is dying of heart failure. I'd like to deduct that but honestly that probably puts a hundred bucks in my pocket come April. BFD. The benefit to your average pet owner is minimal.
One point I wanted to make about vet care is how amazingly low the prices are versus human care. My cats echo cost $500, my echos cost $4,500! It's amazing how exposing consumers to the raw cost of service, plus removing significant legal liability really does keep costs down. Sure the level of service and level of training is vastly different, but I would gladly make that trade off for most of my routine care if the practitioner could bring the price down to something I could reasonably well afford out of pocket without even needing insurance. And what da ya know, the vet med industry has majicly figured out a way to predict the cost of service in advance!
smurfy at September 24, 2009 11:01 AM
Come to think of it, allowing the deduction will only serve to increase the price of vet med service. It might be a net negative benefit to your average or reasonable pet owner.
smurfy at September 24, 2009 11:16 AM
Everything should be tax-deductable.
SnowDog at September 24, 2009 11:54 AM
"Everything should be tax-deductable." - Yeah 'cause preparing your tax return is already too easy.
smurfy at September 24, 2009 12:06 PM
discrimination! I cannot have pets due to allergies, therefore this is a discriminatory law, and should never PASS!!!!
did I screech appropriately? Heh, they could make my child support tax deductible, I'd like that...
I think this stuff occurs because people look at the government as being Rich Grandfather, which they try to weedle cash from. Instead of looking at it as an extension of themselves.
SwissArmyD at September 24, 2009 12:39 PM
All a tax deduction does is shift the tax burden to somebody else. As a pet owner, I'd benefit,but this is a nutty idea.
Flat tax/fair tax, and if you don't pay, you can't vote.
MarkD at September 24, 2009 12:39 PM
I think this would encourage all sorts of the wrong kind of pet owners... I think a lot of people would get *more* pets, and then not take care of them. I mean, imagine Michael Vick taking deductions for all his dogs...
On the other hand, there'd be more footage for "Animal Cops: Boise" on TV...
cornerdemon at September 24, 2009 12:58 PM
Well, if medical services are deductible, and if having pets lowers blood pressure etc and is healthy...preventative medicine, so to speak...
Also, visits to prostitutes should be tax-deductible, or just plain subsidized for the same reason. Women go to psychiatrists to hear what they want, and feel better. Men go to prostitutes to hear what they want and feel better. I am for total equality--visits to gigilos should be subsidized too.
Churches? I have to subsidize someone else's church? But not a brothel (a far more useful organization).
All of which underlines a point: Why is anything tax deductible, such as home mortgage interest (not in Canada, btw). It is all nanny-statism.
A steeply progressive tax rate and no deductibles is the obvious best choice.
i-holier-than-thou at September 24, 2009 1:54 PM
I have 5 dogs (2 adopted from now homeless folks), and this is a stupid idea. More importantly, with all of the important issues around, why is this even being discussed in congress?
ron at September 24, 2009 2:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/24/why_should_pets.html#comment-1669405">comment from ronPandering to the greedy pet owner vote.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2009 2:59 PM
Offtopic — Can we sex this up a little? Some good personals this week:
In 2004 I was a love machine…now I’m just an affectionate blender. Whirrr.
box no. 18/02
Do you remember where you were January 20th 2009? Or August 13th for that matter? Angry UPS guy.
box no. 18/04
Without my grandfather’s contribution to agricultural reforms in 1912, this nation would currently have to import its turnips. While you think about that I shall remove my clothes. Man. 55.
box no. 16/02
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 24, 2009 3:03 PM
I'm fine with pet owners having a tax break. You're keeping one less animal off the streets where it could be hurt, be infected with some serious disease like rabies and possibly become a danger to others. Pack dogs, especially those who are used to human contact, can be dangerous. Think of it as a reward for public service.
Patrick at September 24, 2009 4:23 PM
We have lots of spiders around the house. Can I claim them as pets? They seem to be more active than the cat...
If the cat dies, can I still claim it?
The plants are very quiet. They don't move around as much as the cat. Are they pets too?
EarlW at September 24, 2009 7:28 PM
Hmmm, I buy health insurance for myself and family and it isn't a tax writeoff. But if I do for a pet it would be.
Unfortunately, about half of the Democrats I know have at least 2 cats so It will probably pass.
Joe at September 24, 2009 8:55 PM
The main reason for opposing something like this is that it may well encourage more people to simply keep a pet as a tax deduction and would simply act as a subsidy to vets and encourage more dog breeders. I can just imagine the tax time advertisements for pooches.
Yet in some ways I agree that pets are not the same as other possessions. People have a legal obligation to care for pets, but not for other things. Also, if people are unable to care for their pets they end up becoming a public responsibility through pounds and shelters. The same is not true of your record collection.
Nick S at September 24, 2009 10:15 PM
i think it would be a good idea to give a tax break for adopting an animal from the shelter, but only for the adoption itself. or some kind of incentive, anyway. and then maybe tax people who have unwanted kittens/puppies in order to 'teach their children the miracle of life'? no seriously that wouldn't work. but i do wish there was a way to incentivise (is that a word?) adoption from shelters, i don't think a blanket pet-owner tax break is a good idea. i don't particularly like the one for having children, either, for that matter, that's a choice too. i'm going to get in trouble for that one. but anyway i have two dogs and two cats, just for the record. the cats are cheap. the dogs not so much.
whatever at September 24, 2009 11:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/24/why_should_pets.html#comment-1669457">comment from whateverAdopt a dog if you want one. Otherwise, don't. Don't expect other people to pay you for that or for opening the door for a little old lady. (Surely, that's next.)
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2009 12:04 AM
JakeTaylor writes: "I don't really care at this point about the "why," as long as I'm paying less in taxes."
That, of course, is the problem - and how these special interest deductions get in place.
Micki has the answer: "This is the type of thing that makes me long for a Flat Tax."
But that will never happen. With special interest, our beloved congresscritters can demand campaign contributions. With a flat tax, where's the opportunity for graft?
bradley13 at September 25, 2009 12:29 AM
Ugh. Crid, I'm all for sexing up the discussion, but please, not in a thread about animals! Gross!
Patrick at September 25, 2009 2:21 AM
I have 2 dogs and 2 cats and all 4 have pet insurance, runs $1,200 a year for all 4. I don't want a tax break for taking care of animals I chose to get, nor do I deserve one. It makes me very angry when people get pets they don't take care of and I agree with other posters that a pet is a luxury therefore if u can't afford to take care of an animal don't get one. What idiot(s) thought this crap up
nina at September 25, 2009 5:31 AM
The key phrases are "...qualifying pet care expenses, including veterinary care, to be tax-deductible."
I see the possibility of a "Family Spa", where pets and their owners could get a tax-deductible relaxing massage and skin treatment.
Vets could prescribe hi-protein diets (steaks, fish) so I could get a tax-deduction for our next BBQ.
A Flat Tax would just simplify the tax code. Not necessarily reduce taxes. They could simply set the tax rate to some absurdly high number. They still have to pay for their pensions and useless pork projects.
The only solution is to pay for what you use. period. No exceptions.
Nobody should be forced to provide money to people who are unable or unwilling to earn it. Charity works. Replace taxes by service fees that reflect the real cost of something, and people will make their own decisions on what to pay for. Replace welfare with local charities and groups that are funded voluntarily.
EarlW at September 25, 2009 9:11 AM
Amy,
You do not have to wait for HAPPY Act, H.R. 3501 to pass to deduct your dog related expenses on your tax returns.
You already can. Let me explain.
Susan, office worker, already owns snake as a pet. Then, she decided to moonlight as a stripper on the weekend and use her pet snake as a part of her dance routine. She can deduct the business portion of the cost of snake and snake care expenses against her income generated by stripping.
Ted, internet watch seller from home, keeps his watch inventory at home. He buys German Sheppard to guard his watch while he is sleeping or away from home. Ted can deduct the business portion (guarding duty) of his dog and dog care expenses against income generated by the watch sales.
Amy, advice columnist and professional blogger, owns a little Chi Wawa and she frequently blogs about her dog or animal related subjects to draw pet owners to her web site to promote her advice column and sell her books and advertising. Amy should be able to deduct business portion of her cost of dog and dog related expenses against the income generated by her service and sales.
Amy, talk to your tax adviser about what is the reasonable business portion. As long as you frequently blog about your dog or pet related subjects, say once a week, I don't think the IRS will challenge the 30 % deduction.
Chang at September 25, 2009 10:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/24/why_should_pets.html#comment-1669555">comment from ChangSorry, Chang, just too cheesy for me. I have my dog because it makes me happy to have her, and I'm just not going to try to twist her into some business expense. I don't like big government, but I am grateful to be a citizen of this country, and will pay to support it, and do what I can with my blog and other efforts to help kill funding I don't agree with...which is a buttload of it...(along with voting out the scumbag, lobbyist tools who are behind it).
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2009 10:52 AM
Awesome post, I have quiet a few dogs and really love them loads.
Dog Collars at April 21, 2011 1:43 AM
Leave a comment