Oh no... not Thad McCotter. I have such huge respect for this guy. Tax deductions for pet care? Oh man...
I'm for deductions in general, anything to let people keep the fruits of their labor, but this is just such an odd issue on which to push for deductions.
Then again, maybe it is worth it just to goose people like the author of the USAToday article:
After all, tax deductions like these tend to most benefit those of us who already itemize our expenses, hire accountants to do the heavy lifting and earn incomes worthy of higher tax brackets. In fact, the higher our incomes, the more we stand to gain from this legislation. How does that help needy animals?
What kind of twisted sense of fairness and personal property rights leads people to say things like "earn incomes worthy of higher tax brackets"? Like the progressive taxation system is is some kind of reward system whereby the more you earn the more "worthy" you are of the state taking more of your money. It'd be worth passing this thing just to tweak this author's sense of economic propriety.
How does this help "needy animals"? As if the only help "needy animals" want is through the poorest people in our society? Sure, this doesn't help the poor since they don't generally itemize deductions, but there are a great many people (both current and potential pet owners) who do stand to benefit from this proposal and thus their pets (and pets they may decide to take on as a result of this deduction) stand to benefit. How about this: if middle class and higher pet owners get deductions they are more likely to donate more to ASPCA and other needy animal causes. They'll quite possibly take on more pets, which means more licensing fees, more veterinary payments, and a greater demand for various pet care products which will help spur more production and possibly lower pricing on those products, thus tangentially helping the poorer pet owners.
Still seems like a goofy bill. My respect for McCotter has taken a momentary hit.
But, letting people keep more of their money out of the government's hands is good. If doing that under the cover of a pro-pets bill is how it has to happen, so be it.