U.S. Congress - H.R.3501 Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years Act
H.R.3501 - Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years Act
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses. view all titles (3)
All Bill Titles
- Official: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses. as introduced.
- Popular: Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years Act as introduced.
- Short: Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 1-30 of 52 total comments.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
I agree! That is ridiculous. With all the other taxes, we don’t need to subsidize people’s pet choices!!!! We have REAL problems to solve, not this fluff. Ha
- pets -fluff…..lolWe subsidize peoples kid choices. Take a look at the welfare system. Non-pet owners can’t relate.
Clearly, you have NO CLUE the financial burden people who taken in abandoned animals are taking off your local government. If everyone who does these good works ceased, your local cities and towns would be OVERRUN with strays. People who take in these stray are correcting the irresponsibility and abuse of others who get pets then do not take care of them by failing to spay/neuter, love, and care for pets. Finally, how do you reconcile that we can bail out Wall Street, but cannot help innocent animals who are only here through human negligence in failing to properly spay/neuter?
Filtered Comment [ show ]
By rewarding responsible pet ownership, American families are more likely to spay/neuter their pets which will reduce the number of unwanted animals and, subsequently, become less of a financial burden on every municipal, tax-funded animal shelter.
This is a bill that is necessary from any political angle. It is a benefit to the American public, municipalities and to the American government.
Anyone drawing parallels between this forced “health care” fiasco and this bill is really misinformed about what “tax credits” are.
Thank you, thank you, could not have said it better! faithstra1
Right On!!!
You have to be living in a dream world if you think the passing of this bill is going to encourage people to spay or neuter their pets. The people that are “responsible” pet owners are already doing this.
The people that don’t get their pets fixed aren’t doing it because of the money. They are doing it because they are irresponsible people. Giving them a tax credit for the money they spend isn’t going to make them actually spend that money and do what is right.
I hope this bill passes because I AM a responsible pet owner and having a tax break on my pet expenses would help me a lot right now.
Many people do not know about the Happy Act. Loving animals and wanting to have them and care for them comes into play whether you can afford them or not; it is a matter of the heart to make them part of your family. However there will always be some people whether they have income or not, that will not make their pets family and keep up their care. People get pets sometimes for the wrong reasons, but those who own them for the right reasons, really need a bailout for what they have to put out for care. I average $5K/year for my pets preventative care and food alone. The working class is the group of people who end up paying the high costs of petcare and if the costs were not so high, many low income petowners could provide for their pets. Pets need affordable care and coverage too. Unfortunately, vet clinics charge too much-there are no breaks for the petowner. And as far as human healthcare goes, having a pet is preventative maintenance for a healthier life. Pass the Happy Act!
I didn’t ever get my Boxer fixed, I’ve never seen a need to, he is not aggressive and doesn’t “hump” things, I think about doing it now but I don’t for the simple fact that it is pointless at his age, and quite honestly I believe that all pets should be fixed and that only government recognized breeders that produce well-tempered blood lines who pay for licensing and earn their credibility to be “breeders” should do so. This would eliminate muts and mass breeding and provide a controlled population.
What a shame that you failed to take this loving step for you Boxer—not only for the prevention of unwanted litters—but because the AVA has shown repeatedly that animals who are spayed/neutered see a greater than 30% reduction in cancers of the reproductive systems. Not to mention the many other health and behavioral benefits. I agree that breeding should be CAREFULLY monitored and not permitted, except for those who pass stringent regulations. Clearly, anytime people, animals, and money are connected—the animals will pay the ultimate price. Failing to spay/neuter because your pet is not “aggressive and doesn’t hump things” simply shows a tremendous ignorance about the plethora of reasons for spaying/neutering your pets. I hope you will choose to be fully educated on this issue and make more loving decisions in the future.
I’m having a hard time believing this is not a joke. I could possibly go for a credit JUST for the spaying/neutering, but that’s it. I mean, my personal supplies aren’t a write-off, why should someone else’s pet’s supplies be able to be a write-off?
Because pet owners, who take in pets that other irresponsible members of society have abused and/or deserted, are reducing the financial burden on local and state governments.Moreover, throughout history, great thinkers, philosophers, and leaders from Aristotle to Nelson Mandela have echoed the sentiments spoken by Mahatma Ghandi, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” and Abraham Lincoln, “I care not much for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.” Simply put, it’s the right thing to do, and it’s high time that America reward those who do the right thing, and stop rewarding the money-hungry, me-firsters! In contrast, you are able to provide for your own personal care expenses (animals and children cannot earn money). But, I note that if you were unable to provide for your own personal care, the government currently provides all kinds of programmatic assistance to help you.
Said well!
I have no human children and feel left out of all the credits and deductions that folks with children receive. This is a choice I have made. However, I do have furry children, and the costs of the care for them can be high. I give them the same or better care than some people give their children. It would be nice for all people with pets to receive some recognition for the pets in our lives that help make life more enjoyable.
same here, no children but not by choice. My furry babies are my children, I care for them just like I would for children.
Next time you think this doesn’t make sense—check out how much your local governments spend on care for unwanted pets. Then, ask yourself—how much higher would the cost to taxpayers would be if those who currently take in abandoned animals just stopped. People who take in deserted animals are alleviating the cost to society of irresponsible people who fail to spay/neuter and properly care for their pets. Look at the welfare system—we subsidize “breeding” among humans who can make a conscious choice about whether or not to have children—how can we NOT do this for animals who have no choice!?!?!
Well, for example, we pick up after the greyhound industry is done using and abusing the dogs. Racing greyhounds are so inbred that they are prone to very expensive cancers and idiopathic events (such as vasculitis). Sad endings for one of the most gentle, loving breeds of dogs. The industry still kills thousands of these over-bred dogs each year and offers little to no support to the non-profit groups that work to rescue the ones the industry dumps. If my tax dollars are going to continue to be used to bail out rich, unfettered, greedy bankers & CEOs (they sure did ‘capitalize’), I don’t mind getting a break for cleaning up after another failing industry that requires subsidies (such as slots on tracks) to stay alive.
YES! YES! YES! Thank for your wonderful and very on-point comment. If we can subsidize banks and insurance companies, and pay to clean up behind agencies like TVA, how can we turn our backs on the suffering that is maliciously inflicted on animals in worship of the almighty dollar? It is time that we recognize crimes against animals for the blight they are on society, and stop rewarding the Michael Vicks of the sports world, and giving tax breaks and help to the groups such as the beef and pork industry!
Please vote for dbeltramo!
I am sorry to be so long getting back to this page. But did want to thank you, Apelila, for your tremendously kind comment.
This must be a joke. We are are only able to deduct health care expenses that are in excess of 7.5% of our income. Now we are placing pets above humans? They are telling us that 63% of homes have pets. They failed to mention what percentage of homes have human occupants. To consider this when so many people are uninsured is insane. We have considerable health expenses but yet do not meet the requirements to deduct them. I guess I’ll have to claim my husband as a pet and take him to a Vet!
It’s about time! I have no human children, only furry, four legged ones. But I love them no less. Why should I not be able to deduct expenses and receive tax credits on them the same as those with children? I pay taxes to educate others children, others do not pay anything for my “children”.
What a great idea – finally a government idea for all people.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE educate yourself—as an attorney I can tell you that historically where the rights of animals, women, and/or children are elevated—society benefits exponentially because the willingness to do help one of these groups indicates a shift in mindset to a more humane philosophy. Thus, if we’re willing to do this for pets and pet owners, the next step (or visa versa) will be benefits for human health costs. Moreover, consider how many disabled people depend on service animals—the animal is a part of their health care cost! Or, consider elderly citizens or young children who may have no one but a beloved pet. We know that pets contribute significantly to the mental and physical health of their owners, thereby reducing their owners’ healthcare costs. Thus, this is an indirect credit for human health care costs.
perfect.
Everyone loves a good tax break, but this is horrible idea. By subsidizing pet ownership we would be encouraging more pet ownership. Everyone will get a pet just to get the tax break. Some of those people are going to be irresponsible and abusive. We will end up with even more unwanted and abused animals than we have already. This will end up being just another way people can game the system for their own selfish benefit. It won’t benefit animals at all.
Not to mention it is fundamentally immoral to force people to pay for something you do that is purely optional.
I totally agree with you! This does nothing for the sake of animals….or wait a minute, maybe it does. Pets are now dependents, which gives them rights, which leads to your pet(s) suing you. Cass Sunstein’s brilliant idea.
What? Are you kidding? We subsidize the beef industry—whether to eat meat is optional! We bailed out the housing industry—whether to own a home is optional! We saved the banking and insurance industry—whether to keep your money with a bank or purchase life insurance is optional! We subsidize zillions of “optional” things in this country. Subsidizing something meaningful that is relevant to the lives of many and helps reduce the burden on local governments is just smart—not optional!
Having children is optional, too!
See…I know this because I made the CHOICE not to have any! However, how much money have people like me spent over the decades, paying taxes for something we personally will never benefit from. I am also not married, so I get no tax break there. Again, it’s the choice I made but I don’t benefit from so many things that spouses and parents do!
This the way it works…or the way it should anyway! No one is ever going to qualify for every tax break/credit out there. So passing HR 3501 will in fact make things just a bit more fair for people like me.
And people will not get pets just because this passes! It’s not an “automatic” type of tax break…people should read first.
It just makes it so that the money that you do spend can be written off. Do you also condemn people that can write off supplies for example, a home office?
This is a wonderful Bill! One of my dogs is my Service Dog, and this would help greatly with his care!