The Happy Act

The Happy Act

PostBy: Richard S. On: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:51 am

Insanity.

    Happy Act

    Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act (Introduced in House)

    HR 3501 IH

    111th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 3501

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses.

    SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES.

  • (a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.

  • (b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500.

  • (c) Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified pet care expenses' means amounts paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet other than any expense in connection with the acquisition of the qualified pet.

  • (d) Qualified Pet- For purposes of this section--

    • (1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet' means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.

    • (2) EXCEPTIONS- Such term does not include any animal--

      • (A) used for research or owned or utilized in conjunction with a trade or business, or

      • (B) with respect to which the taxpayer has claimed a deduction under section 162 or 213 in any of the preceding 3 taxable years.'.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: The Happy Act

PostBy: Black_And_Blue On: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:00 am

One of Øbama's czar crew advocates for an animals legal rights.


http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-cass-sunstein-has-secret-animal-rights-agenda
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.
Black_And_Blue
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska 140

Re: The Happy Act

PostBy: tvb On: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:09 am

It's a pet project of a Republican lawmaker from Michigan.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/ ... -act_N.htm
tvb
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska
Stove/Furnace Model: Channing III


Re: The Happy Act

PostBy: SMITTY On: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:12 am

That doesn't make it any less foolish.
SMITTY
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Patriot Coal - custom built by Jim Dorsey
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mark III (not currently in use)
Coal Size/Type: Rice / Blaschak anthracite
Other Heating: Oil fired Burnham boiler

Re: The Happy Act

PostBy: djackman On: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:14 am

No more insane than being able to deduct gambling losses.
djackman
 
Stove/Furnace Make: 1980 vintage Tarm
Stove/Furnace Model: FT22 (aka 202) installed!

Re: The Happy Act

PostBy: acesover On: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:25 pm

Wanta bet
acesover
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Baker
Stove/Furnace Model: insert, modified

Re: The Happy Act

PostBy: 009to090 On: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:10 pm

Do we hav to get social security numbers for our pets now? :shock:
009to090
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520 HighBoy
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: DVC-500 x 2
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Rice

Re: The Happy Act

PostBy: pvolcko On: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:12 pm

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.
pvolcko
 


cron