The Michigan Messenger:
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter has introduced legislation to create a tax deduction for pet owners' expenses related to their pets.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So "cash for clunkers" is favoring a certain portions of the country (people who want to buy cars), but a deductible for pet car isn't? Don't get me wrong, I love and adore by babies (kitties) but this is not a necessary expense. The gov should only be offering breaks for necessary expenses (food, housing, health care, education, etc.) If you can't afford to take care of a pet on what you make, you shouldn't own one, and their shouldn't be an incentive from the gov for people who do. Why give the rich a reason to get 20 pets other than they love and want to give homes to animals?
Well McCotter - you should tax churches and the wealthy in exchange for this deduction.
Pray tell Mr. McCotter how will we cover the lost taxes due to these deductions? With those lost revenues we will serve to increase the deficit you all suddenly seem so concerned about.
People, we can no longer afford to stand by and do nothing! The only way to get solid health care/health insurance reform is to continue to push for it - and not let up! To this end, I have set up a petition to have paid health care removed from our representatives in Congress until such time as they reform health care - to include a strong public option - for 'we the people' who they are supposed to represent.
If you agree with what I am doing - I am going to ask you to do what I have been
asking others to do...sign it, then spread the word to anyone and everyone you know!
I am but one person - and cannot make a difference on my own...but there is
strength in numbers and, if we work together, with assistance and determination, all things are
possible! Please do what you can to help us further the cause of health care with a strong public option! Thank you!
http://www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html
GREAT IDEA !!! Fund it by doing away with some of the tax breaks that were given to the rich folk. And don't forget to tell them its another GOP idea.
I guess rethugs love their dawgs more than their k.i.d.s.
I guess repugs care more about their dogs than their children.
Laissez-les gateau mangons!
I have been a pet owner for most of my life, but this is an appalling suggestion. Non-pet owners already provide heavy subsidies to pet owners and domestic pets contribute significantly to environmental degradation. As a matter of fairness, if tax policy is going to be directed to domestic pets, pet owners should pay a tax surcharge, not receive yet another tax subsidy from non-pet owners.
The most obvious form of direct subsidy pet owners currently receive is the cost of waste disposal. Domestic pets produce an enormous amount of fecal matter on an annual basis and when properly disposed of those costs are shared by non-pet owners in local garbage fees. When not properly disposed of this fecal matter contributes to the degradation of natural water sources. The production and distribution of food, clothing and various other pet products makes a significant contribution to the production of greenhouse gases and global warming. Many of our songbird populations are at risk, in large part because of killing by domestic pets and feral populations. A recent estimate - approximately 1,000,000 songbirds are killed per day in the United States by domestic animals. For example see http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=5379
Pets can be a wonderful thing, but it is time for pet owners to take responsibility for the social costs of pet ownership, not turn to their non-pet owning fellow citizens for yet another financial subsidy.
Does this mean tax deductions for only those who are owned by pugs/lap tumors? Good job then. Works for me.
If you want people to feel that this is foolish then don't have a picture of a cuddley cute puppy that any normal person would want to protect, have a picture of a typical Republican pet i.e. a "Snake in the Grass"
I want the puppy in the picture. He's adorable!
It is cute :)
Me too - she's so cute!
actually, he looks confused.....
cute...but definitely confused
Times are hard.
I own and love four American Bulldogs (they are all Democrats btw).
If needed I will cook them up and enjoy a good hearty meal of dog.
We need to subsidize HUMAN health care, not pets.
It's just like these people that spend ten grand on their pet's funeral etc. when right down the street their are kids that need, food, shelter, health care, education etc.
These kinds of people are all republicans no doubt.
ENRONites.
Uh oh, now you've done it. The next ad will be Dems want to eat your pets!
OH MY GAWAD!!!
They wannna KILL our PETS too!!!!!!!!
Oh the HORROR of these Libruls!!!!!
(2 of 2)
pets need care, love, and a good home. anything that will encourage people to take proper care of their animals, and keep them as part of the family instead of tossing them away when times are hard, is a very, very good, decent and humane thing to do. a life is a life. and if you have taken one into your family, you have a responsibility to care for that life for its duration. it's a win-win situation. they are family too.
Would that we our countrymen felt the same about their neighbors...
So as we take care of the HUMAN owners . . . .
This would not help in the slightest. I would just increase corporate profits and subsidize pet care, including luxury salon care, for the well-to-do, by the average tax payer.
(2 of 2)
Loading comments…
First Posted: 08- 7-09 10:34 AM | Updated: 08- 7-09 11:03 AM