Burnt Offerings: Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act
by Robert DaviDear Friends,
Several months ago I wrote a piece for the Washington Times entitled “Pets Are Family Too.” I am pleased to say the bill has been placed before Congress—It is called the HAPPY Act. I ask for your enthusiastic support of this amendment to the tax code—let’s create a national dialogue on this.
Please go to www.petexemption.com for more information and to show your support.
Thank You,
Robert Davi
Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act –
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
76 Comments
As a young pet-owner, I commend you for introducing this bill Mr. Davi. Many pet owners strive to take care of their animals to the fullest extent because of their love for animals. They probably never think of a possible tax refund, just because they love their animal and they enjoy taking care of it, so this would be a great way to help the good pet owners. I support this whole-heartedly and encourage everyone else to do so as well. Once again, great idea Mr. Davi and God bless!
Dominic Illingworth
Host of the DOMINATION radio show
Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays 6-7pm est. @
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/domination
Sounds like a great idea to me!
You.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding.Me
[...] I really do! Share on Facebook var button = document.getElementById(’facebook_share_link’) || document.getElementById(’facebook_share_icon’) || document.getElementById(’facebook_share_both’) || document.getElementById(’facebook_share_button’); if (button) { button.onclick = function(e) { var url = this.href.replace(/share.php/, ’sharer.php’); window.open(url,’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′); return false; } if (button.id === ‘facebook_share_button’) { button.onmouseover = function(){ this.style.color=’#fff’; this.style.borderColor = ‘#295582′; this.style.backgroundColor = ‘#3b5998′; } button.onmouseout = function(){ this.style.color = ‘#3b5998′; this.style.borderColor = ‘#d8dfea’; this.style.backgroundColor = ‘#fff’; } } } Tags: boon companion, doggies, Man’s best friend | Category: Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Floyd | Leave a comment [...]
Dear god, are you serious?
This is a joke, right?
This year alone I exceeded, in health care expenses, the maximum deduction for my "free" dog.
While I think this is going a bit too far — why shouldn't I get a tax break to offset the horrendous school district property taxes I pay when I don't have any children? I'm paying (dearly) for services I'll never use.
Do I have to be my dogs "Guardian" like I am here in Boulder, CO?
what?! no endorsement from bob barker? sacrilege!!!
I like pets, but I don't think a deduction for qualified pet care expenses is the way to go.
One reason the Internal Revenue Code is so complex is because there are so many deductions. It's better to simply lower marginal tax rates, and let people keep their money and spend it as they want.
Moreover, the bill's language is quite vague. It provides a deduction of up to $3500 for "qualified pet care expenses". But what are "qualified pet care expenses"? The bill tells us that they are "amounts paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet." That is a very broad and ill-defined category of expenses, and I would not be surprised to find people claiming deductions for things like doggie spa visits and the like. I don't have a problem if someone wants to send their dog to a spa, but I don't think it's a great idea to give a tax deduction for it.
One reason the code is so lengthy is because that is where all the steps for defining "qualified pet care" will be, not the deduction. Some deductions are easier to get than others. I would love to have a tax writeoff for rent.
Every renter in America subsidizes the tax writeoff home owners for their mortgage payments.
And I happen to really love this bill. So many stray animals who cost nothing to purchase end up costing tons in medical care. Many, many people have NO human family for companionship. For them, their "pets" are the only souls in the world who care if they live or die.
OK I need a judges ruling? Is this for real? Is it?
unfortunately…Now I want to go home and watch Best In Show
You all see what's happened here, don't you? Thanks to the insanity of groups like PETA and the Animal Liberation Front, the cause of animal rights has been so irreparably tainted that when someone comes out with an even halfway decent idea like this, he's inevitably going to get his balls ripped off by someone else.
Actually, I don't approve of public schooling, of tax funded and government controlled compulsory schooling. I'd rather see schools that were "free" of state control than schools that are "free". Which, of course, they really are not. We all pay. (As someone said recently… seems like a lot of people think that the government sh*ts money.)
I would hope, though, that if the state was out of the business of institutionalizing children, people would view private schools and providing scholarships to students as a worthy charity and worthy expense even if they do not have children of their own… the difference being that they are not forced to pay for education religiously or philosophically opposed to their own beliefs. They can choose to support schools or supply scholarships on whatever basis they feel makes the most sense… always knowing that our communities and nation depend on people other than ourselves and that if we don't want children, well then, thankfully someone else is willing to have them.
That's not where we are, though. Where we are now is in a place where school attendance is mandatory, compelled by the State… and if you think so or not, you're part of that coercive entity and really ought to, rightly ought to, help pay for it.
Part of me is assuming that this is a parody, but all of me thinks it's a good idea. So I'll risk looking like a sucker and say good show, Mr. Davi.
Of course, the cynic in me wonders what's to stop irresponsible people from buying 15 dogs and not feeding them so they can make phony deductions…
Anyone commenting on this, pro or con, really ought to read Mr. Davi's linked editorial from the Washington Times before weighing in. It isn't very long and it explains the reasoning behind the bill.
Since you've already scrolled down, I'll link it again to make it easier: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/o...
How 'bout an extra deduction for us childless single folks who aren't contributing to global overpopulation.
Or deductions for people who eat their vegetables and use their turn signals.
Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie!
keeping some of MY money is not a GIMMIE!
Now I'll go read the WT piece.
OK – in my family a very sick or injured pet is put down – money is necessary elsewhere. So great with sadness this decision is made. Such a break might intice some to send a little more…
Not the worst idea out there.
OK – in my family a very sick or injured pet is put down – money is necessary elsewhere. So with great sadness this decision is made. Such a break might intice some to send a little more…
Not the worst idea out there.
Like doggie welfare queens? Welfare bitches? You're not saying that government largesse incentivizes irresponsibility are you MovieBob? Turn in your liberal credentials at the door. Better yet… let's e-mail flag@whitehouse.gov and see what they say.
@ MovieBob: Like doggie welfare queens? Welfare bitches? You're not saying that government largesse incentivizes irresponsibility are you MovieBob? Turn in your liberal credentials at the door. Better yet… let's e-mail flag@whitehouse.gov and see what they say.
The idea of making my dog he equivalent of my child as far as tax deductions dehumanizes my child.
Give me the Fair Tax instead and let me spend as much as I want or need on my pets without the government requiring documentation.
wcgreen's child has nothing to do with this bill. A business expense is a deduction too and it is not the equivalent of anybody’s child. Keep the analogies focused folks. Any tax deduction to reduce the goverment's take from our money is wonderful.
wcgreen's child has nothing to do with this bill. A business expense is a deduction too and it is not the equivalent of anybody’s child. Keep the analogies focused folks. Any tax deduction that reduces the government’s take from our money is wonderful.
Wow, um, does this mean that all pets will have to be registered and licensed despite and LOCAL or STATE laws?
So the premise of this is basically that a person who makes a voluntary choice to have and own a pet will now get a tax break because the pet makes them feel warm and fuzzy.
What happened to personnel responsibility? Pets are not a required item in the world in which we live. They are a CHOICE.
Don't ask me to subsidize your choice to have an animal. If you can't afford to own one, then don't. Its that simple.
I am absolutely ashamed that any Republican Representative would propose this.
My wife and I just had to turn down our vet's recommendation that we do an ultra-sound on our cat due to the cost. The cat is 14 and having heart issues. If it were tax-deductible, it might have been possible.
Rather than ask "why should pet care receive special treatment?", ask yourself "why should pet care be taxed?"
Robert Davi is an articulate, intelligent man. (Keep the articles and thoughts coming, Mr. Davi!) I want to support such legislation, but I'm troubled by the lack of additional forethought. How does one verify that a pet is under the care of its owner? Will pets need to be registered ($) to qualify, and if so, how will the IRS track them? What qualifies as a pet — and what doesn't? Will medical testing firms be allowed to qualify their lab animals as "pets"?
Interesting legislation, but not something I can support without further details.
[...] here: Burnt Offerings: Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
As much as I like tax cuts, I think just a general redesign of federal taxation (Fair, Flat, Abolish, etc.) would be a better way to go. Otherwise this is a fine bill. As long deductions are through tax forms and receipts, not any form of government oversight, that is.
The only pet care that I think should be subsidized (actually, it should be mandated) by the government is spay/neutering.
What? I been getting the dependent deduction on my dog since 1963 set the birth information into Hawaii been no problem. Been sick since birth and the SSI check has been, lets say useful.
What? I've been getting the dependent deduction on my dog since 1963 set the birth information into Hawaii been no problem. Been sick since birth and the SSI check has been, lets say useful.
Read his article in the Washington Times. He is a good writer.
I am all about tax exemptions. Actually, I am somewhat about them. I am far more about giving up less money in taxes altogether. And I am mostly about dogs. Rowruff!
I did not hear the sarcasm in your voice. Sorry my bad. Getting old an need them hearing aids. Them one's the One will buy me.
I think this will help foster a new perspective by many pet owners that may skip necessary health related treatments because of cost. It's about time we start treating with respect, the one's that help many of us in the human race by showing uncondtiional love and companionship since the beginning of time. Maybe this will also facilitate more adoptions instead of the taking these precious lives who have so much to offer (and do so without hesitation). Thank you Messrs. Davi and McCotter. I wish you the best of luck in pursuance of this most noble endeavor.
Anything that reduces what we owe the feds under this b.s. system called the Federal Tax Code is good. As the commercial goes "we are for dogs . . . .dogs rule!" P.S. If you don't have a doggy when you file, just pretend you do.
The Human-Harley bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people's emotional and physical well being.
Therefore, I now expect a deduction for maintenance on my Harley Davidson Night Rod Special.
I believe that we should treat animals humanely. However, the pendulum has swung too far towards deifying animals as humans. Pets are not family. Period.
What? I've been getting the dependent deduction on my dog since 1963 sent the birth information into Hawaii been no problem. Been sick since birth and the SSI check has been, lets say useful.
And God Bless your cousin Leo Grillo, for he has done some fine work.
I was being sarcastic. I read the article.
Anything that keeps more $$$ out of government hands is a GOOD thing.
As for recognizing that pets are a part of the fabric of the modern American family – not a thing wrong with that.
For those of you who whine that it "dehumanizes" children – get a brain so you can search for a clue. The only comparison of children and pets is in your perception. What do you think, the government is going to eventually eliminate tax deductions for KIDS because we have a PET deduction? What a silly notion.
For those of you who think it's a "subsidy" that you're paying for – go get a pet. Even if it's a freakin' goldfish. People who CAN'T have kids can still adopt, or find ways to live with the fact that they aren't able to have little tax deductions running around the house. People who rent – well, I rent AND own a home…sure it sucks not being able to claim a deduction in rent. Get creative and find those tax dodges, and put your $$$ to work.
Government with money is always a bully.
Anything that keeps more $$$ out of government hands is a GOOD thing.
As for recognizing that pets are a part of the fabric of the modern American family – not a thing wrong with that.
For those of you who whine that it "dehumanizes" children – get a brain so you can search for a clue. The only comparison of children and pets is in your perception. What do you think, the government is going to eventually eliminate tax deductions for KIDS because we have a PET deduction? What a silly notion.
For those of you who think it's a "subsidy" that you're paying for – go get a pet. Even if it's a freakin' goldfish. People who CAN'T have kids can still adopt, or find ways to live with the fact that they aren't able to have little tax deductions running around the house. People who rent – well, I rent AND own a home…sure it sucks not being able to claim a deduction in rent. Get creative and find those tax dodges, and put your $$$ to work.
Government with money is always a bully.
Thanks, Robert Davi & Congressman McCotter. I like this bill.
Do like the idea.
And no doubt our pets are special family members, but a tax deduction may be a bad thing.
Concerned that the usual government formula will be applied with this, you know, you think your gaining on one hand while the government will is taking it away and more, with the other.
Fees, lic., extra charges and more government regulations on vets maybe?
I'd like harsher punishment of those who mistreat and harm their pets or other domestic- human dependent animals, in anyway. Get at the source and make them pay big time.
The more educated our youth the less crime and welfare exists. So yes you do recieve services thank you very much!
Odd that you could deduct the health care expenses of your fish but not of your wife, children or yourself. At least not if less that 7.5% of income.
I love my dogs but pets getting preferential tax treatment over family?
Consrvativ_KDH – August 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm: Interesting suggestion to renters, to just get creative and find all the tax loopholes they can find. Do you have any idea how time consuming and expensive that is? To hire a competent accountant — operative word here is "competent" — who can negotiate the entire IRS tax code?
Homeowners are given preferential treatment by the tax code, at the expense of renters. That is patently discriminatory. If you can write off the expense of shelter, then so should everyone. Or, you can count on more people continuing to use hook or crook to "buy" a house.
Renters are still treated like drifters in some states and that pretty much guarantees that they will be drifters. Building owners like it that way. Even though renters are the customers paying all the money.
But really this is about companion care costs and I fully support a tax deduction for it. Like someone else said, anything that keeps money out of my government's control is good.
I like the Harley idea……….Maybe a race car maintenance tax deduction too? But (there is always a "but" isn't there) I can't agree with you on pet's (Dogs specifically) not being part of the family. Mine have done much for me, including as I mentioned above, saved my rear from a dumba** carjacker in Indianapolis (the dog woke up as the guy tried to open my back door! The dog hit the glass so hard he broke the window…ha!) not to mention they are the "ultimate household security".
I don't have kids yet, so the dogs are essentially my kids at this point, but just because I don't have kids yet this doesn't relieve me of my responsibility of paying taxes to send "someone elses" children to school. I pay it and don't complain. So a deduction on "Legitimate" medical expenses isn't asking very much. I should get something back for the amount the state and fed soak me for each year. No? Actually I should say pay less! I can't remember the last time I got something back……..
For Ignatius ~
Dude, even if you're a Z-list failed blogger wannabe, you can find a way to write off rent (or at least part of it) if you are using it for a home business. You have to put your computer, table, chair, butt, etc., somewhere to do work.
(Sorry to all for not doing the "Reply" thing – for some reason, it doesn't work for me…)
Thank you for this Mr Davi. I would love to have been able to deduct some of the $18,000 in medical bills I incurred last year for my faithful friend. I did everything possible, but he passed one year ago today. While some people think it was crazy to spend this money (I had it, so I did) on a dog. I look at it a different way though. This animal was with me through good and bad. He actually saved my butt from a carjacker on one occasion. He was there through a psychopathic ex. He was a friend. I dare anyone I meet to find a person as loyal as this dog was to me, and then refuse to do everything in your power to help him. My point is that we have deductions for all sorts of other frivolous crap, why not man's best freind?
I need to find a new country. Pet ownership of any sort being given favored tax treatment? Really? There is no rationale in the world that makes this fair, sensible or prudent. Not with my money, no thanks.
Every day I'm greeted with something more and more absurd – I'm starting to think that we need to start from scratch or maybe divide the country into two countries, one for those who want a nanny government and the other for those who want a minimalist government. Oh, wait a second, then who would pay the taxes for the Nanny government?
I don't often call people out on these sites, but are you for real? I refuse to read any justification for this policy – there can't be one. Let me tell you, I've been unemployed for 10 months and am going broke – but I don't want a government handout, I'll get on back my feet on my own (with some help from friends and family). I have a daughter in college who has to take more loans to stay in school, we are running trillion dollar plus deficits – do I have to go on? Let me ask you this, is there any good cause you don't think the federal government shouldn't get involved in? What do you think the purpose of the federal government is? To deliver every social good some freaking jerk-off dreams up? I suggest you learn something about the nature of liberty and our constitution instead of wasting your time posting on this site.
You are stupid. If you get to keep more of your money because you have a pet but I don't because I don't have one – then I'm being taxed at a higher rate because I don't have a pet, it's axiomatic. THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE.
Your pets should die before my money goes to pay for their care, sorry.
Why should I help someone have a pet? I'm going broke from this recession and I should subsidize someone's pet?
I f I call my cows 'pets' do I get a deduction for the whole herd? What about the frogs in my pond??
What makes this idea fascinating (yes, you must read the washington post article) is that california was toying with a pet tax. Yes, tax you for having the pet.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/o...
I don't remember stating an opinion one way or the other in my comment.
By the way, I'm in a tough spot, too. And I'm against the bill. I just thought that Mr. Davi's thoughts were worth thinking about before spouting off. Clearly, thinking before spouting off is not in your playbook.
Thanks for making our side look awful, though!
Are you sure I can't convince you to switch sides? You aren't doing anyone any favors on mine, if this is your standard operating procedure.
Also your children and any chance you might have at a better life. That's what we're working towards!
I have two well-cared for and well-loved dogs. I would love a tax credit for them, but I have a huge concern about this.
It is very easy for someone to get a per, or two, or three, treat them like chattel, shut them up in crates, or lock them in a basement and use them just to get the tax credit. There are enough animal abusers who do it for free, why add the incentive of financial gain for them?
That's a rather short sighted view. Consider that the next time you need a fireman/policeman/ambulance/Dr etc. and where those people come from. Which, for the most part are previous students of the schools your property taxes help pay for. Personally, I have found much to complain about with the quality of our public education system but, private education simply can't provide the sheer volume of students produced in our country. So, the alternative is to get our public system to produce the quality graduates we want. All that aside, if you want to partake of a communities services then you must be ready to support the foundations underpinning them. In other words pay your taxes.
Hi, Robert!
Thank you so much–you and Rep. McCotter are awesome!
Connie Billips
For Consrvativ_KDH's reply a day ago to my reply to him:
Dude, that only goes so far. It most certainly does not make up enough to compensate for the cost of shelter. You continue to either willfully change the subject because you know renters subsidize homeowners' shelter write-off and you know it is discriminatory and you're fine with certain persons being treated unfairly by the IRS code, or, you really think each person is supposed to game the system just like everyone else does. That only encourages less honesty. Or is capitalism really just fancy parasitism?
If one group of people, renters, many more of such now exist due to the collapse of the housing market for a number of reasons, cannot write off specifically their cost of shelter, like homeowner's can, they are being discriminated against. Building owners make renters pay the property owner's property taxes. So renters are double-discriminated against by having to pay their own taxes AND those of the building owner.
Ok, I remain in favor of this write off because many humans do not have other humans for companions for a variety of reasons. The only soul who cares about them just happens to be coated in fur. That doesn't bother me, at all.
EXACTLY!
Seems like the FairTax is the way to go to me too.
Ignatius ~ (part deux)
And by the way, owners DO NOT get their "shelter" subsidized. They are allowed a write-off of INTEREST ONLY, which decreases as equity increases. So your theory that a renter is screwed is false, as time goes on for the owner. The smart renter can make out better in the long run on tax savings. They just won't have an asset. They WILL, on the other hand, have more liquid cash.
Emphasis on SMART renter.
For Ignatius ~
Ever think of a business lease of the property, with a sub-lease to you? You'll have some income, but a larger business that will absorb write-off cost of the entirety of the lease with only a partial income on sub-lease and administrative costs to keep the place up, keep the company up, etc., being borne by the business….
That's not "only so far", dude, that's the whole enchilada if you do it right. Same as owners. And no, I didn't change the subject, I addressed it head on. I just didn't give you the entire view up-front. You are the guy who wandered into the personal attack.
Please don't blame owners because renters can't figure out the tax code.
It's ironic that humans can only deduct the medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their taxable income. Let's change that while we are at it. But the deductions would help me. I've spent over $10K on an adopted Mexican dog and $4K on an adopted stray.
[...] the idea of a pet tax exemption to my attention, I took the idea to Congressman McCotter. Today “The Happy Act,” HR 3501, is a bill currently making its way through Congress that will allow for owners to [...]
[...] the Left opposes The HAPPY Act. Anything that takes money from an out-of-control central government and gives it back to the [...]
I'm disappointed that no one has cited the health benefits to owning a pet. Study after study has shown the effect of animals on people– reduced heart rate, calming.. Why do you think therapy dogs are so successful?
I remember when I lived in Alexandria, VA – I had to register my dog with the local government. I think there might have been a $25 fee associated with that as well.
This was many years ago and my husky has since passed on.
You must be logged in to post a comment.