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.
[snip]
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 ...
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?”
Great.
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!
LOL!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.