Skip to comments.HR 3501 IH (HAPPY Bill for Pets)
Posted on 08/18/2009 8:57:36 AM PDT by combat_boots
Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act (Introduced in House)
HR 3501 IH 111th CONGRESS 1st Session To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses.
Mr. MCCOTTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means --------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63 percent of United States households own a pet.
(2) The Human-Animal Bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people's emotional and physical well-being.
SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR PET CARE EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new section:
`SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES.
`(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.
`(b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500.
`(c) Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified pet care expenses'...
(Excerpt) Read more at thomas.loc.gov ...
A congresscritter offering, co-sponsoring or voting for this shouls be flogged.
And I say that as a guy with saeveral cats and 2 guinea pigs.
Great....I have five horses they can pay for. What ever happened to people taking care of their own?
You have to be kidding. All that is truly wrong in America, and all that the current administration is trying to do wrong, and this is what the baboons in Congress are spending their time on?
California is considering a bill to ban the docking of cows' tails.
Should we write to our masters thanking them for allowing us peons to have3 a pet. What BS
I kan haz tax deducshun?
Next year the new bill will allow the pets to vote.
I could wish this was the worst thing that Congress ever did under Obama.
a tax break for pet care, a tax for health care. hmmm...
Will a mouse and a Great Dane get the same vote?
I hope this is a joke, what F888ing fools.
But we can claw back some of our tax money this way. A tax break for pets is smarter than 99% of the foolishness this Congress has given us.
As long as we are to the right of the Laffer curve, this is a step in the correct direction.
Hmmmmmm... There’s opportunity here methinks. I, for one, just looooooove squirrells... and we’re overrun with them. Do I get a tax deduction for each one that’s feeding on my roof ?
If you buy them squirrel seed.
Agree heading to Thomas now to read the amendments hidden in this warm an fuzzy critter bill .....gun ban ?.....health care ????......highway mopery etc !
Doesn’t seem to be a percentage of gross income limit as there is with deduction of medical expenses for your human children (or your human self).
Hunting dogs should not be exempted.
I agree. I own pets because I can afford to. I don’t expect any kind of a tax break from the government for doing so.
“As long as we are to the right of the Laffer curve, this is a step in the correct direction.”
Congress taking money from me and then returning it to me for an approved use is not a step in the right direction.
And yet they kill babies through abortion every day.
Down with this bill.
LOL !! Agree !!
I have never heard of docking a cows tail...but you do dock a sheep tail as it can end up sticking to the sheep and the sheep cannot shi!.
Right... there is a reason for it.
No one docks cow tails because there is NO reason to do so.
But they're trying to pass a law against it anyway.
Calif. is so fuc-ed up..But it does have great weather...love San Diego....:O)
“I kan haz tax deducshun?”
In case you all didn’t know, HR 3200 does include veterinarians in the national health service corps.
PG 900 (+/-) The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians (in re med & vet schools’ admissions based on diversity).
This is not a tax “credit” it is a “deduction.” The only way the money would make the circuit you describe is if you overwithheld in the first place.
Veterinarians. Is Obamacare going to include animals?
When congress sets the tax rates high enough that they can decide who gets credits or deductions it is wrong. Rates should cover the legitimate expenses of gov’t not pandering to different voting blocs. I like pets as well as the next guy but it isn’t the gov’ts place to encourage or discourage having them.
If I overwithhold then I am due reimbursement.
Is there a “pet owner bloc” that’s mostly Rats? I wouldn’t think so. Pet ownership is immensely popular. There are far more pet owners than home owners. This actually would spread tax relief pretty broadly, and without the need to add a new government bureau.
Oh, and this would also royally p*ss off PETA, which does NOT believe in pets!
Well, anything that gets a bigger tax deduction. This is crazy and I don’t support it, but I will use it if it passes.
I know it’s immensely popular but it isn’t the gov’ts job to concern temselves with it. I don’t care if it is dem or repub it still is wrong to take from one person and dole money out to others for feel good stuff like this.
I am with you on the peta part though.
Nothing’s doled OUT at all.
The gov’t collects “x” amount of dollars. They set the tax rate at “y”. Then they subtract deductions and credits, we’ll call that “z”.
(x x y)-z
This gives you the money the gov’t has to spend. If you lower “z” or in a perfect world remove “z” altogether you can lower “y” and come out with the same amount.
Then the gov’t multiplies this by atleast 2 and then cries they have to raise “y” because we are in debt. Its for the wemmin and chillin you know and spot too of couse.
Again, this is where the counter intuitive effect of being to the right of the Laffer curve peak kicks in. That tax relief (even if the excuse is pets) means more productivity on the producer side. The result is higher wages and more employment which means more tax to be reaped — more, in fact, than was initially granted as a deduction.
I understand your point about the Laffer curve but if you were to ask Art Laffer if we would be better off to not take the money out of peoples hands in the first place than to reinject it on the right side of the curve I’m sure he would agree.
The math would still work. It’s a cut for some, not for all, but that’s a mighty big “some” in this case.
I am deliberately ignoring the propaganda value of the move. It would be the warmest, fuzziest thing to come out of a Rat Congress for decades.
It is still unfair to those that don’t have dogs,cats,snakes,gerbils,pot bellied pigs, rats and on and on. It still empowers congress in their pick and choose scheme. That’s why the tax code is tens of thousands of pages. I could write the tax code on ONE page. But than there would be a lot of dissapointed people.
I think animal shelters and pet stores would find their business picking up quickly after such a bill passes. I can’t see a partisan angle to it. Shoot, it would even apply to goldfish.
I agree this is better than a lot of stuff congress does but it is still wrong. Bye the way I beleive MCCOTTER is a republican.
Hey, check this out. Its hillarious
I’m from Calif and I think I’ll send it to my reps.