In the nation’s capital, where $12.1 trillion of national debt looms and Democratic President Barack Obama’s projected 2010 budget shortfall is expected to hit $1.26 trillion, a bill is pending to establish up to $3,500 in annual tax deductions for the family pet.
The legislation is known as the HAPPY Act – Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years – and it has some support.
Funny…I thought it was the Bernard Madoff Act.
Intercessor
Sounds like a tax break for the wealthiest Americans to me.
You know where this will lead to. “HAPPY Act – Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years”. This is a robust acronym that can accommodate so much more!
Is that per pet? Let’s see: we currently have one dog and two cats…
[blockquote]The legislation is known as the HAPPY Act – Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years . . . [/blockquote]
Hmmm . . . H.A.P.P.TY, no, HaPPTtY . . . er, HaPePThThYe ??? . . .
[blockquote] . . .and it has some support. [/blockquote]
. . . apparently from those suffering from Acronymically Challenged Thought Syndrome (ACTS) . . .
Seriously (kinda) tho’ – Am I to understand that the President is considering tax breaks for people who own small Methane-Producing Animals (those of you who deal with “dog curbing” or cat litter pans know what I mean)? Perhaps the dairy farmers I know can suddenly adopt 150 head of “pets” into the family and make enough to cover the vet bills, and maybe even pay for a carbon offset or two. 🙂
Will it cover dentures for my cat?
I’m wondering if this is a preemptive governmental action to move “marriage” even further…
It is not for cats ir dogs, it is only for the birds ….
[blockquote]”My family and I are pet owners, but the idea of a pet tax credit is for the birds,” said U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis of Travelers Rest.[/blockquote]
I have been reading way too much on TEC. I read ‘partnered’ and think of something completely different.
[blockquote]Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years [/blockquote]
From the article: “Michigan Republican U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter is offering the measure but declined requests for an interview.” The party of fiscal responsibility indeed.
I’m glad these Republicans have ideas on how to decrease the deficit.
Does it include no-fault divorce from a wayward “partner”?
I just looked up this bill and was amazed to find it has two co-sponsors. Reading the text of the bill it doesn’t look like expenses are limited to pet medical care. It looks more like your domestic pets become akin to dependents under the IRS code. If I had not seen the bill I would think it to be a joke. This is getting ridiculous.
Beyond just being a goofy idea from Members of Congress who apparently have no threshold of embarrassment (their number is larger than one would hope), this reflects an attitude about taxes that should truly be disqualifying for anyone holding public office. Taxes (or relief therefrom) are not favors to be granted “in” groups. They are the taking of private wealth by threat of force by the government for the most essential societal needs. If policies are well-considered and managed, and reflect a strong democratic process, the citizens understand the necessity and will cough up with minimal grousing. When taxes become the government in-crowd’s playthings, then we have tyranny, no matter how democratic the election process is.
I’m looking into adopting a couple of pet rocks just in case.
Mmmm. Why stop at a couple? If I adopt enough of them I can eliminate my entire tax liability. I wonder if a single guy who has a pet as a dependent becomes a Head of Household.
Gotta love those Republicans.
I’m always glad to see political cooperation but this is the first time I have seen the PETA folks lined up with some Republicans.