Davi Discusses the HAPPY Act on ‘Fox and Friends’
by Big Hollywood
–
Obviously, the Left opposes The HAPPY Act. Anything that takes money from an out-of-control central government and gives it back to the people who actually earned it is anathema to them — but there’s been some polite opposition from our side, as well.
What you might call “killing the good in pursuit of the perfect” reasoning:
This will only complicate an already complicated tax code…
…which is why God invented TurboTax.
People will abuse the law…
…and 99% of the laws on the books could be disqualified with that line of reasoning.
Any tax law — any tax law — that keeps tax-dollar-crack out of the hands of DC Democrats and in the hands of the people who earned it is a good thing.
Robert nails it best in the video, though, when he suggests people debate and discuss the Happy Act on the merits. The link above sends you to a copy of the actual bill. Many of the concerns people have voiced are already addressed in the bill.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
60 Comments
"Any tax law — any tax law — that keeps tax-dollar-crack out of the hands of DC Democrats and in the hands of the people who earned it is a good thing."
i agree. lets just broaden "DC democrats" to "Progressives", so we can include all those lovely repubelicans who also love to spend our tax money. Progressivism is the disease… and it has infected both parties.
Robert Davi has his heart in the right place and he and his family do great things for animals without question. But I still have to go with personal responsibility not Government solutions.
Agree! I stop differentiating between R and D.
There are enough R's that want so much to feel included, they check their R principles at the door in the Beltway.
I respectfully disagree for another reason. If I choose to have a dog (and I do, a really, really big one), then caring for the dog is my responsibility to care for him. I have no moral right to demand some one else pay for it through a tax break to me.
Letting you keep your own money is a government solution?
This is a great idea for the time being. Why don't we all put our efforts in getting people in congress to end the IRS so there is NO tax on any income, no deductions and put the consumption tax at a low rate of 5% and cut all the waste starting with all politicians salaries, pensions, perks freebees, pork , that alone will pay off the debt.
John,
But what about personal responsibility? Where does it stop? Free food for animals how about a tax deduction for my food? How about tax deduction for clothing? How about not taking my money to start with?
Exactly, giving any person unfettered access to unlimited money and power is a recipe for disaster. This country is on the verge of disaster because for too many years politicians of both parties have been allowed to purchase their offices with tax dollars. And of course I don't ignore the stupid greed of many Americans who give their vote to the politician that promises them something from the public treasury.
It's a tax deduction … a way to keep your own money. It is not taking your money to start with. You deduct it before the feds get it.
I'm all for lowering taxes across the board. Targeting special interest groups – any special interest group – is not equal protection under the law. It's It's using the tax code to promote social engineering.
It's an exemption. No one is paying for it. You are keeping your own money.
Any money that doesn't go to the feds by whatever means is okay with me. This isn;t welfare, it's a write off — a way to keep your own money. The Feds never get it and are not redistributing it. That is and always shall be a good thing.
As an animal lover — both in pet and cheeseburger form — the idea that some strays might find a home is mere icing.
"Do you oppose the exemption for children in the tax code?"
Yes I do, The tax code is set up to make you "Fell Like" the Government is doing something for you. My tax code would be easy one. You make $100,000 you send 7% to the Feds 10% to the state. End of the Tax game.
Yes, I know I am a Whacko thats what Hollywood can do to some of us.
The feds are not going to accept one single less dollar if this is passed, what they will do is raise taxes on some other group to make up the difference. That's not fair to the other group.
I'm a strict constitutionalists libertarian. The constitution has no provisions for picking and choosing to help or hurt any group of Americans. As a matter of fact, what the government really needs is a new amendment that what ever the feds do to/for one group, they have to do it for all Americans. So next time they decide to give billions via the farm bill, they have to give us all billions. That would put a stop to this absolutely insane tax code.
And yes, I'm a big pet fan too. I'll be happy to donate to Mr. Davi's specific charity.
Putting one's own hand in one's own pocket to help out their fellow man is one of the most wonderful acts of kindness in the world. Putting one's hand in some one else's pocket to help out their fellow man is theft.
I have an issue with the government using the tax code to influence behavior. There shouldn't be a tax break for having a dog, just cut the taxes (and spending) across the board. Don't "reward" me for behaviors you like with my own money, just don't take my money. I am not a dog that you can toss a biscuit when I behave myself. This is also a bit of a red herring, taxes are not just the money they take from our paychecks, taxes are the amount of money necessary to pay for all of the country's spending. If the government is spending money, someone is paying for it in some way. The government either takes the money with force (taxes), prints more paper money, or borrows it. If it makes this tax "cut", but doesn't also cut spending, the spending will just be paid for either with a different tax, inflation of the money supply, or by borrowing. Taxing takes the money from you now, printing make your money worth less, and borrowing taxes your kids. This idea sounds good on the surface, but really won't help anything and just throws well-meaning conservatives a bone and gives government a new tool to influence our behavior and control us.
Now that appeals to my libertarian streak! Get the government the heck out of our way, so we can do what's best for ourselves, and the amount of charitable giving in this country would sky rocket. I know I'd donate more if I could keep more.
Americans are the most generous society on the planet. We love to help out our fellow citizens. If only the government would make that easier!
Well, of course that's a better solution, but it's also highly unlikely to occur in our lifetime. And that's what I mean by killing the good in pursuit of the perfect.
In the meantime, in the era of Pelosi/Obama — let's use every means at our disposal to let people keep their own money. That's all I'm saying.
If we lived in an either/or world where we could choose your plan over the HAPPY Act — of course … we'd all choose your plan. But that is not the world we live in, unfortunately.
The game is what it is and I'll take a couple yard game for economic liberty over getting crushed as I wait for a different game to begin.
Actually you make perfect sense. What the heck are you doing in Hollywood?
So do I, it's social engineering. You agree at first, because it's for a good cause. But it never stops there.
But that's the way the game is played. MAKE the other side raise taxes. MAKE THEM. That's how they lose votes and our side win's election and might eventually get to a place where a saner tax system can be put into place.
No tax cuts unless they're across the board? Talk about cutting off your nose…
I respectfully disagree. It's not a game. I know some one who lost their house because of property taxes. This is real. It affects people's lives.
Dividing people into different groups is wrong. That's the left's entire game plan. Divide, convince one side they're victims, and you'll make the other side pay if only they'll vote for you. That is an evil game. It's not going to be any less evil if the other side does it.
Instead of looking to government for assistance – a bargain with the devil if there ever was one – instead, let's solve the problem ourselves. We can do it faster, better, cheaper, and we won't owe some politicians a favor. We can do this ourselves!
John it sounds like our only issue is: what game we are playing trying to keep our own money? And yet be stewards of our Country? I don't like games and government mixed.
I do like that Robert is trying for a solution that he sees a need to be addressed. I just never saw my stewardship, of my animals, an issue other than one that I need to be responsible for. And a deduction to me is nothing less/more than a form of redistribution of wealth.
How are you asking the government for assistance when you are keeping your own money … and please don't take this as my making light of the people who lost their home, because I'm most certainly not — but maybe this kind of a deductionor others like it could've made the difference…
With all due respect, what wouldn't make a difference is waiting around for a pie in the sky (in this day and age) across the board tax cut or a complete rejiggering of the tax code.
EdSki,
For right now it is where the money is. And where a dying family member is at. Till one passes it is where I will be. As a native of this state I am very sadden to see how bad it has gotten and we have seen nothing yet.
I guess I should have made my below post in this thread instead of on its own. It is true that if it is a tax deduction and not a subsidy it is not welfare, but it is still government influencing behavior. We shouldn't get distracted when they wave a shinny "tax cut" in front of us without considering that this is just another way for them to control us.
It is also meaningless unless they also cut spending. See my post below for a longer explanation, but if they are spending money, someone, somehow is paying for it. These little bones they throw us just make us are nothing more than a way to placate voters and convince the voters that they cut their taxes so they will get reelected. The HAPPY Act is probably a good name, it will make the voters Happy without actually doing anything useful.
How does the govt. control us by allowing us to keep our own money? How do they influence behavior by allowing us to deduct what we're already spending on our pets?
I agree with your overall point, but don't for the life of me understand how it applies here.
And how is allowing people to keep up to $3500 of their own money "meaningless?" This is money the feds would normally get to redistribute and now won't.
What could be better for the economy than that?
Why don't we give people that ultimate tax break? We should be talking about the Fair Tax legislation more often. No forms, no IRS and April 15th would just be a beautiful spring day.
John,
Please let me keep my pie in the sky thinking that things will break in this country for the betterment of all mankind and we start finding Common Sense solutions. You don't want to see the other movie
Plus if we support this government behavior modifier, it opens the door for other behavior modifiers. Say, they give you deductions for having kids, then pets, for joining a gym, for volunteering for ACORN, for turning in your guns to be destroyed, etc. Then they tax you for smoking, eating fatty foods, buying ammo, not having kids, not joining a gym, etc. Then they decide that population growth leads to global warming so they tax your for having kids and give a deduction for not having kids. Then pet violate the animals' "rights" so they tax you for having pets (which they already do its called licenses), and give deductions for not having pets. If you support the behavior modifications that you agree with, it opens the door for modifications you don't agree with.
I don't for a second think you are making light of the subject, and I thank you for this reasonable, logical, polite debate. That's what I always hated about being on the left, this type of discussion is frowned upon. Good liberals should be attacking, not questioning.
And not to get off topic too much, I think in the next 10 – 15 years there's going to be huge changes in the tax code. Between new entitlements and ballooning deficits, there is no other option than huge changes.
For me it's a question of fairness, and fairness does not come from government. It comes from our mutual respect for each other.
Targeted tax breaks are not fair, they are attempts at social engineering, using the IRS to force us to change our behavior.
Believe me, I'd be making the exact same argument if this were a debate about funding planned parenthood. And if that were the case, I'm guessing you'd be agreeing with me.
Government's role in our lives, by the rule of law (not that politician and very few judges care) is restricted to Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. And nothing else, unless its found in the amendments.
If I demand (futilely) that government stick to the rules, its hypocritical of me to make exceptions because I agree with an issue.
I'm all for people helping out those in need. I do it all the time myself. Today I sent out checks to St. Labre's Indian School and Food For the Poor. But that's me deciding what to do with my own property, not some one at the state or the federal government.
That's my point.
Because it is only letting us keep our money if we do what they want us to do. If we don't do what they think is good for us then we get punished by them taking our money.
It is meaningless because they are still going to spend that $3500 and we will just pay for it in some other way. If they don't take the $3500 out of your pocket with a gun, they will either take it out of someone else's pocket (for not having a pet maybe) or they will just print it out of thin air. If they print it, then by the law of supply and demand, the $3500 that you think you just got to keep, is all of a sudden not worth $3500 anymore because there is an increase in the money supply.
You have my sincere sympathy for your family member. I come from a very large family. I understand.
You are correct, California is a perfect leading indicator of what we're all facing.
Thanks for your well wishes it is something we all face as you know, just like those Taxes
We either deal with it or run away. I am going to deal with family and run from taxes as soon as possible.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Gadsdenista. Gadsdenista said: I love the HAPPY Act! Davi Discusses the HAPPY Act on Fox and Friends http://is.gd/4uCQV [...]
The answer? Sure it is a game. The stakes are just really really high, and if you actually care about these people you are going to play to win.
Just incase I was unclear, and I'm sure you already realize this, but I was just addressing why some people on our side wouldn't ever be convinced that this is a good thing, which makes debating it with them nearly pointless.
Also, I love reading your articles.
/sigh The first half of my comment (it was too long and had to be broken up) hit something in the filter because I used the word a – n – a – l – o – g – y, and I don't have time to retype it since I have to finish up work before I leave, oh well.
do i need to have my pet registered? would love to get a dog, but don't want a wussy dog and won't keep a large one in my apartment. long story short, i'm still taking advantage of this bullshit write off! what is the point of this tax break?
Someone else ISNT paying for it. YOU are keeping YOUR money for it. I understand you are trying to say that if you get a tax break the government will have to tax someone more. This is false however.
You are operating under the logical assumption that the government will tax X money to function, and if you pay less tax someone else will have to pay more until the government gets X. The government however doesn't need as much as it currently gets, and it will keep spending more than it currently has. The problem being is the spending in our government isn't logical. Some would call it the spending of a foolish child that is using their parents money, not their own. I would call it insanity.
I don't like pets personally, but if this becomes law I'd find one I do get to keep money from reaching the corrupted liberal/socalist congress. Think of all the money we could stop them from getting their hands on if every conservitive that didn't have a pet got one for this tax break.
YES!!! I have 10 pets!! I'll take the money and donate to conservative candidates — by the way, I have mental conditions…. I call them G.D. DEMOCRATS!!!!!! G.D. LEFTIES!!! DRIVING ME MAD (and I mean ANGRY)
The way government works, they collect confiscatory taxes, which they like to refer to as "revenue." If they give one group a tax break, and they don't cut spending, they have no choice but to make up the loss from taking it from some one else, or else borrow or print it, both of which costs us all more in the long run.
Economics isn't a zero sum game, but government is. The logical assumption I'm operating under is called basic economics.
If the law passes, and you do get a pet, you may think you're keeping more of your money but your not. Government is simply taking it from one of your other pockets.
There is no person in this world who knows better how to spend a dollar than the person that worked to earn it.
I'm with you, but a tax credit is nothing more than an illusion that we're keeping more. They just find another way to take it anyway.
Remember that the Humane Society and the ASPCA also are in favor of this. One more reason to not donate.
They show abused puppies for donations, but the TRUE abuse is when lobby for these kinds of senseless ideas.
Similar to PETA who pleads for money by showing starving cats and dogs (as if they were going to feed them) and then turns around and lobbies for huge excise taxes on meat.
I agree. I've been wracking my brains to see if this is an appropriate analogy to use in polite company, and I'm still not so sure it is. Trust me, I'm going to be pondering this for a while before I hit submit.
If it's okay for one special interest to get a tax credit for caring for animals, what happens when the next special interest group comes along, and they firmly believe pets are the major source of green house gasses (which they ain't), and want special tax breaks to use economics to force people to not have pets?
I'm not arguing the issue, I'm arguing the method – government.
I own 4 dogs, and presently fostering a rescue dog. My food & insurance bills for my 4 dogs is around $350/month, yes they're very large dogs. I'm on the board of a rescue club which is a 501c3, non-profit orginization..
With that being said, I'm very against this idea of a tax deduction for the expenses related to the care of my pets. There are 100's of non-profit rescue clubs across the US that are desperate for donations so that they can continue to provide their free services to the "pet community". In most cases these donations are tax deductible, so there are already ways to get tax relief.
If you own pets, you should be financially able to care for them without having any "incentives".
I almost agree with you, I steer slightly to the right when you say "Realistically."
Because, realistically, it may appear they are saving a few bucks in one account, but they are paying the same money from another account. These tax credits are nothing more than shell games the government uses to push their own ideologies and their own agendas. They're like rabbits pulled out of hats, or a disappearing coin. Over all, nothing has changed.
I'm not injecting religion into this debate, but I think something from the Gospels helps explain my opinion on this subject. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
It's the entire tax code that's poisoned. The government has been using it for decades to foster hatred between various factions and groups, for the sole purpose of buying votes. That's the weapon they stuck in the back of personal responsibility and individual liberty, and they continue to twist it today.
If person A has something that person B wants, buy off politician C to pass a law and get it for you.
It's just wrong. I don't pretend to have all or any of the answers, but I can smell a cesspool.
You are waaay out of line on this one, Editors.
Personal Responsibility trumps creating another crybaby constituency of yet another special interest.
Favoring ANY particular cause via the tax code ALWAYS leads to more regulations, more bureaucracy, more taxes, and more reasons for government to have an interest in our daily living habits.
Remember the TeaParty movement is not about party, it's about getting rid of Big Government once and for all!
C'mon, guys, get with basic principles and ethics on such questions or be left behind 11/2010.
I don't know why but this book always comes to mind when I hear about money being given away by the government.
"It can't happen here" by Sinclair Lewis
http://www.boomfox.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3...
I don't know why but this book always comes to mind when I hear about money being given away by the government.
"It can't happen here" by Sinclair Lewis
http://www.boomfox.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3...
I don't know why but this book always comes to mind when I hear about money being given away by the government.
"It can't happen here" by Sinclair Lewis
http://www.boomfox.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3...
Sound familiar?
I don't know why but this book always comes to mind when I hear about money being given away by the government.
"It can't happen here" by Sinclair Lewis
http://www.boomfox.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3...
Sound familiar?
I don't know why but these types of things always remind me of this book.
See if it sounds familiar.
"It can't happen here" Sinclair Lewis 1935
http://www.boomfox.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3...
I fixed the above link..I don't know why it always gets redirected when I post a link to something at my forum. :-/
I have rescue dogs. By taking in my dogs, I have relieved the shelters of the expense of their care. In some cases, these shelters are taxpayer funded, in other cases, they are supported by tax deductible donations. It would be a benefit to me if there were a deduction I could take to offset the expense that I have taken away from the shelter, but I don't expect it, and I'm not asking for it. However, as the "mom" to senior dogs – one of my pound hounds was adopted at age 10, and in poor health – I know that a lot of older dogs wind up in shelters because their care has become too costly – would that tax break help keep these animals in their "forever home"?
It's hard to say – I'm pretty much a flat tax person, and I would not exceed a tithe – 10% – which, I suspect, would relieve the burden and complexity of taxation. Another deduction is another complication and taxation is complicated enough – but, bless Davi, his heart is in the right place.
I love this idea. It would make spaying or neutering and proper healthcare for pets much easier and more attractive for pet owners.
It sounds like you have fallen victim to the politicians' mindset. The only way someone else would "pay for it through a tax break to me" is if every penny you earn belongs to the politicians. Through their benevolence you are permitted to keep some of it, but the more the government gives back to you the more they must keep of someone else's earnings. You are thinking just the way the Imperial Federal Politicians want you to think. IT'S YOUR FRICKIN MONEY, NOT THEIRS!
So a dairy farmer now has 100 "pet" cows in the barn?
Its like my parents used to tell me about children…………………"Don't have any more than you can afford"
I have 4 dogs, and I'm not looking for any handouts, or tax deductions because I elect to be a pet owner.
Don't have any more pets than you can afford.
Again I respectfully disagree. I think you're thinking the way they want you to think.
You sound like you're saying 'please big Mr. Benevolent government, pretty please allow me to keep a few cents here and there, I'll be more than happy when you take it back some where else.'
My opinion is don't even bother with the cesspool in Washington, set up a foundation, and tell me where to send my check. I'm ready to step up and do my part. I think trying to go through government at all is waste of time, energy and resources.
We don't need them. We can manage our own issues.
Does this mean I can sue my landlord since he doesn't allow me to own pets and is therefore taking away a tax exemption I could possibly have?
Personally, I like the sentiment Davi brings, but I think this opens a huge can of worms. But then I'm already against manipulating the tax code to reward someone's ad hoc personal choices.
Are you kidding me? A true conservative would never opt for the swiss-cheese tax code we have today. It's not about the ease of filing tax returns (contra your silly comment that Turbotax makes this OK). It's about the ease of reforming the tax code overall. Wrinkles added to the tax code are impossible to iron out, politically speaking. And they lead to all sorts of perverse incentives. I'm all for folks owning homes, for instance, but why at the expense of renters? Are we surprised that there was a housing bubble?
I'd like to spend more time addressing this nonsense, but it seems a waste of breath when right-leaning folks are apparently clueless.
It's really no wonder Americans can't control government spending or personal consumption–collectively, we are adopting the mentality of "money grows on trees." Think big picture, y'all, and stop letting the government distract you by passing out candy or free t-shirts! Panem et circenses are the enemies of a free society!
What folks don't seem to realize is that a tax deduction is no different than government spending. The only tax cuts are cuts in the rates. Everything else is social engineering and political pandering. Boo! Hiss!
You must be logged in to post a comment.