Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

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.


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.

Res,
People in the country keep cats SPECIFICALLY for their hunting abilities. IOW, the reason they are kept at all is so that they can eliminate vermin. Sure, as my mom will attest, they don't limit themselves to vermin. One of her cats has become adept at taking hummingbirds that make the mistake of flying too low to the ground; as well as song birds that, likewise, don't show prudent caution.

Between the cats, and a couple of king snakes, they haven't had to pay for pest control services (except for termite baiting) in years.

mo' ron wrote:

I would get a puppy and keep it in a small cage just to reduce by tax burden by $3500/year.

Try goldfish.

Res,
People in the country keep cats SPECIFICALLY for their hunting abilities.

And there has been serious ecological damage done as a result.

ScifiterX wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

resedit wrote:

radarman wrote:

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

Yes.


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.

Any dog or cat that has to be spayed or neutered once a month should be in the circus.

:snort:

To be fair what you are saying whatever you said did not come out right res.

I say you meant that the vet runs a special once a month where it costs $25 to get your pet spayed or neutered. The person I bounced it off of says you meant he has a $25 per month payment plan. Any clarifying comments, res?

Yes - once a month they do reduced spay/neuter.
Once a week they do reduced shots.

resedit wrote:

Res,
People in the country keep cats SPECIFICALLY for their hunting abilities.

And there has been serious ecological damage done as a result.

More or less than pest control companies would have done?

One thing to note about domestic cats, they are one of the few species that hunts for sport whether they need to eat or not - so they kill mice, birds, snakes, frogs, bats, etc. in large quantities.

Last edited by resedit (2009-10-13 4:53 pm)

I am with resedit on this one.
This is absolute idiocy. Frankly I think too many people have pets already and I would be more in favor of a tax on pet ownership if anything.

resedit wrote:

One thing to note about domestic cats, they are one of the few species that hunts for sport whether they need to eat or not - so they kill mice, birds, snakes, frogs, bats, etc. in large quantities.

Frankly, this is why cats are ideal vermin control animals. If they only killed what they needed to be sated, you would need a dozen of them. Cats are far safer to humans than chemicals, cleaner (for the most part) than traps, and are highly effective against a wide range of vermin. They also last for years, and if trained early, require little more than periodic visits to the vet. If they like you, you may get the bonus of having your feet warmed at night.

Also, I don't know about the cats in your area, but the ones I've seen tend to have fairly small ranges. No more than a square mile for the most adventurous of cats. This restricts their damage to the area where their owners are. http://www.knowyourcat.info/info/teritory.htm

You are really complaining about habitat intrusion, which is a problem, but the cats just make life easier for the humans. The damage has already been done by the humans

D'Eyncourt wrote:

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

I think your intestinal flora might consider themselves as having rights too. . .  because everyone knows a grizzly bear can't become a goldfish. . . gawd. . . I thought that was all self evident. . . next thing you know you'll have e-coli marrying George Foreman grills. . . see how much of a slippery slope that gay marriage thing is. . . . omg. . . the end is nigh. . .

resedit wrote:

I understand their benefit to farming, but I wonder if their benefit is over-rated, I wonder if the snakes they kill would do just as good of a job at rodent control as the cats do.

How frequently do snakes eat?  Aren't there some that go like weeks between meals?

dv wrote:

I don't think I deserve a tax break for feeding my cat.

That said, does anybody know if seeing eye dogs, or those dogs used in nursing homes, can be deducted as a medical expense?

Seeing eye dog is as a medical expense. Presumably all helper animals but I don't know that for sure.

Jokotai wrote:

Only here could such a ridiculous proposal merit 45 responses.

Make that 46.

I can already see the animal hoarders smiling in anticipation.

I agree that it's a fairly ridiculous proposal, but look at some of the actual tax breaks offered to businesses and rich people, and it starts to sound a bit fair. We see an endless series of stupid, wasteful tax dodges that help the very few, at the expense of everyone else. This, at least, would help the fairly large number of Americans that own pets.

Pariah wrote:

Frankly I think too many people have pets already and I would be more in favor of a tax on pet ownership if anything.

So you would rather 2 of my families dogs sit / die in a pound than enjoy the comforts of my home?

Why would you want to tax us because we can afford to / have enough time and space to take care more than one dog.

THAT is the dumbest thing I have heard all day.