Forums | MacLife

well you can get health insurance for your pets, so why not the tax bene's

Pet care is a luxury.

Tell that to Mr. Fuzzy.

I should make it clear before my post is twisted to make me look like an insensitive bastard that I do believe pets play a vital role in the health of elderly and handicapped.

I don't mind them having assistance with their pet costs, but that should be via charity, not a tax write-off.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Pet care is a luxury.

tell that to the people who are subject to large fines due to improper care of pets.

radarman wrote:

If the tax credit required your pets to be spayed or neutered, would you still be against it? Even the cheapest vets still charge quite a bit for that service. The ASPCA, as far as I know, only pays for it if you adopt from them.

I'm interested in getting a dog, and possibly 2 cats within a year or so, so I was checking out ASPCA and shleters and most of the ones I've come across check out the prospective adopter pretty well and and charge them all the fees as well.
This is most certainly a local or state thing, but around here they do NOT pick up the tab for spaying or neutering, but will not let you adopt without getting it done.


That said I'm not sure I'd even be in favor of a tax credit, unless it was showing some real results insofar as increase in people 'fixing' their pets.

Edit.

OK the place closest to us is a SPCA -a "NO Kill" shelter that receives no money from ASPCA, so they collect their fees from adoption ($300+)

Last edited by iSeamas (2009-10-13 12:55 pm)

well hell, i thought it was all about the money AND the pussy

resedit wrote:

radarman wrote:

resedit wrote:

Tax credit for pet ownership is ridiculous.

And yes - I would benefit. It's still ridiculous.

If the tax credit required your pets to be spayed or neutered, would you still be against it?

Yes.

Even the cheapest vets still charge quite a bit for that service. The ASPCA, as far as I know, only pays for it if you adopt from them.

Every city I have ever lived in has had a vet that does it cheaply.
My vet does it once a month for $25 and does full set of shots for $10 once a week.

If you can not afford to have your dog or cat neutered and you can't find a cheap service then you can't afford to have a dog or cat.

Again, a lot of people in rural areas can own a pet, and avoid the expense of vet care. In the not-too-distant past, people fed their pets table scraps. You just had to have some leftovers, and you could "afford" a pet. My folks have several cats that are vermin catchers - they hunt birds, mice, larger insects, etc. They spend very little on their cats, as they are largely self-sufficient. (Yes, they did have them all spayed or neutered). In a lot of rural areas, a lot of pets don't even have basic immunizations. As far as I know, only rabies is legally required, everything else is optional.

Spaying, neutering, and vaccination benefit all of society, by reducing the number of unwanted or pest animals, and preventing outbreaks of rabies or other dangerous illnesses in pets. That, in my mind, is a better use of a tax break than some of the other shifty dodges we've seen out of the Republicans.

Sure, it probably doesn't directly help a large corporation out, like most other tax breaks; but it could have real, positive benefits to society if it is used to encourage vet care for pets.

radarman wrote:

robco wrote:

Well, I think the child deduction should end after two, so I can't say I support deductions for pets. Pets are nice, but hardly essential.

Replacement rate is just over 2, to account for infant mortality and other premature deaths. Unless you want to entirely depend on immigration, you might want to bump that number to three.

No, the population needs to go down. We're already at an unsustainable number. Unfortunately it isn't just us, we need to get contraception to the developing world pronto.

But children are a drain on the system. I can see two, maybe three, but that's it. For any after that, you not only don't get further deductions, you have to pay more.

mrreet2001 wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Pet care is a luxury.

tell that to the people who are subject to large fines due to improper care of pets.

For tax purposes, pet care is a luxury.  Being a responsible pet owner can be inexpensive, and the total cost of ownership of a pet should be taken into account when the pet is acquired.

The only "pets" I have is my intestinal fauna. I should put in a deduction for them.

radarman wrote:

resedit wrote:

radarman wrote:

If the tax credit required your pets to be spayed or neutered, would you still be against it?

Yes.

Even the cheapest vets still charge quite a bit for that service. The ASPCA, as far as I know, only pays for it if you adopt from them.

Every city I have ever lived in has had a vet that does it cheaply.
My vet does it once a month for $25 and does full set of shots for $10 once a week.

If you can not afford to have your dog or cat neutered and you can't find a cheap service then you can't afford to have a dog or cat.

Again, a lot of people in rural areas can own a pet, and avoid the expense of vet care. In the not-too-distant past, people fed their pets table scraps. You just had to have some leftovers, and you could "afford" a pet.

Pets need to be kept indoors or in a yard.
Cats are one of the leading causes of wildlife declines.

If you can not afford to spay / neuter your pet then you need to adopt one that is already spayed / neutered and you should keep your pet indoors or penned up anyway.

It annoys me that cats are not required to be kept indoors by law anyway, given the considerable amount of ecological damage they do - not to mention the fact that they sometimes destroy a neighbors landscaping.