Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, May 04, 2009
Lisa De Pasquale :: Townhall.com Columnist
Could a Dog Improve Your Life and Tax Bill?
by Lisa De Pasquale
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I’ll never forget the first time I saw him. We met on the Internet in 1999 and I fell for him instantly. He had the most beautiful brown eyes. Then he was just known as number 81 by the Washington D.C. Humane Society. He was a beagle and chocolate lab mix. The adoption process took a bit of time. I had only met him once, but I fought for him. He was in a short-term foster home that didn’t seem to want to give him up despite having me go through the process. Four days before Christmas I showed up unannounced and took my Buster home.

Buster was more than just a pet. He was my companion and best friend. I had him for almost nine years before he passed away last September. He suffered from a heart murmur for many years and as he got older his heart problems worsened. Any time he needed an EKG, x-ray or new medication, my wallet, heart and mind were open to the possibility that it could extend our time together. My finances took a heavy toll, but he lived a comfortable six months longer than the veterinarian predicted.

I am so thankful that I was able to take care of him until the end. It might have been too much of a financial burden for another owner. Given that there are over 80 million homes that have a dog or cat, there are millions of pets that will be in the same situation as my Buster. I recently learned that there is a proposal that can ease the financial costs of our companions.

At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I had the pleasure of meeting actor and director Robert Davi, also a fellow pet lover. We talked about our pets and he told me about a new project he’s working on with his cousin Leo Grillo, founder of D.E.L.T.A. Rescue Sanctuary. In a recent commentary for The Washington Times, Davi wrote “It has become clear to my cousin Leo and me that we should have a national debate about the ability to declare our pets as tax exemptions like any other dependent or valued property with costs.”

Last week Davi launched the website PetExemption.com in order to further a debate on the issue. Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan is working with Davi and Grillo on writing the legislation.

Each year millions of pet owners spend over $41 billion on the care of their pets. During tough economic times, a pet exemption could ease the tax burden for more than 80 million households. Davi wrote, “Currently, an estimated 500,000 Americans are able to receive a tax credit for up to $3,150 for owning gas-saving hybrid cars. Many cities and states also reward hybrid owners with access to HOV lanes and additional tax breaks. Why not allow a tax exemption for pets that would reward Americans for behavior they are already doing to improve their health and well-being?”

There is certainly more evidence that pets improve our health than evidence that driving a hybrid improves our environment. The American Heart Association reported in 2008 that in a study of 76 heart failure patients those who spent therapy time with pets experienced lower stress hormones, blood pressure, lung pressure and pulse rate when compared to those who only received human visitors.

Another study followed 48 male and female stockbrokers that took medication for high blood pressure. Half of the stockbrokers adopted a dog or cat. Those without pets had twice the stress response of those with pets. After the study many of those without a pet were so convinced by the results that they adopted a pet. In her presentation on the results to the American Heart Association, Dr. Karen Allen said, “There are lots of theories, but we honestly don’t know why pets lower blood pressure. We suspect that having something on your side, something you can always count on that is non-judgmental, psychologically creates a beneficial atmosphere.”

A study published in the British Medical Journal that spanned over several decades found similar results. Pet ownership can result in higher survival rate after a heart attack and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Additionally, children that are exposed to pets early in life have less risk of developing asthma and pet-related allergies. For the elderly, pet ownership provides companionship, independence and mobility. The Midland Life Insurance Company in Ohio even considers pet ownership as a positive factor in their screening of clients over 75.

In his article, Davi noted that millions and millions of dollars are wasted on underperforming rescue and shelter programs across the country. A pet exemption would shed light on the mental and physical health benefits to the public at large and encourage responsible pet ownership.

Some people I’ve talked to have expressed concern that an exemption would only further complicate the tax code. As conservatives, our goal is to simplify the tax code, but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be legitimate exemptions. Given the numerous benefits, pet expenses certainly belong in that category.

For me, the pet exemption proposal is important because it would help ease the costs of pet ownership and ensure that more pets will have the preventative and end-of-life care that I gave to my Buster. It could also allow more people to experience the happiness and unconditional love that he gave me.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Lisa De Pasquale is CPAC Director at the American Conservative Union. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives. For more information, visit www.cpac.org. To read Lisa's blog, visit www.thelotusblog.com

Be the first to read Lisa De Pasquale's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

YACHTS
I would like to have a yacht. I may even buy one, a nice 30 foot sloop, capable of coastwise cruising under environmentally conscious sail. I would rarely use the engine, only for getting into and out of the yacht club harbor. This would definitely improve my life and the lives of my grandchildren. The maintenance on these things is unbelievable. As a taxpayer, I think the government, that is, the rest of you, should help defray the expense. My grandkids would love you for it.

What do you think?

Fair Tax
Its called the Fair Tax. You will have more money to spend as you like without the hassle of exemptions. No income tax, nothing to exempt from. Make a s much as your talents allow, spend it any way you like.

Its a plan who's time has come.

No deduction
We have too many tax write off in our code as it is now. And one for pets is absurd. Instead, let's lower rates and forget about all deductions.

While it would be nice...
...for my pets to finally earn their keep, the last thing we need is another few paragraphs to the tax code. I have to stick to principle and say no on this one. Fair tax or flat tax is the way to go.

Joel

"The 16th Amendment allows for the taxation of incomes. Personally, I would have voted against ratification of that, but it is there now."

I may be there now, but if we get the 3/4 of the states to argue for hits repeal, we might be able to starve the beast. And, even if it did not get to that level, the very threat of such would freak them out in DC.

Utter Nonsense
Pets are wonderful. I love my cats and my cockatiels dearly. I've never lived without pets -- even taking an aquarium to my college dorm and acquiring a guinea pig while there.

But pets are not people. Especially, they are not children -- who are the legitimate objects of tax deductions because its in society's best interest to perpetuate itself rather than die sterile.

Nor are pets productive property such as farm animals and business equipment -- with those deductions justified by society's interest in prosperity.

Pets no more deserve to be the object of a tax deduction than my TV or internet connection does.

This kind of mushy-headed substitution of feelings for reason that leads to enacting policies because they feel good without regard to the strict, Constitutional justification OR the actual results is a large part of why we are in the current economic and social mess.

Only a society gone insane would murder unborn babies then suggest tax deductions for pet animals.

Are You Kidding Me?
I read the authors bio, and I was convinced this was a parody piece. But there was no punchline. Are you sure this wasn't supposed to be on the Huffington Post? You should run this idea by the crowd at last nights Pete Seeger concert if you want support. And you are the CPAC Director??
Let's make the tax code more complex! Shame on you.

Deductions to produce people
In the US we seem to use taxes to produce the behaviors that our society needs, while getting money into the government, of course. The income tax deductions for married couples and dependents supports producing babies and rearing them in a stable environment such that they will be productive citizens entering the work force twenty years later.

Right now the US fertility rate is at barely replacement rate. Perhaps rather than allowing tax deductions for pet animals we should increase the income tax deductions for those who are providing the stable growing-up environment that also preserves our culture for our old age and for future generations.

What Crap
I cannot believe what I read in this column. I've joked about this for years and even predicted that some leftist would propose a medicare program for pets. Now it appears CONSERVATIVES are proposing a pet tax exemption. Will it be based on the number of pets? If so, I'll adopt ten or fifteen guppies.

And this columnist is supposed to be one of the best and brightest on Town Hall.com???? We are doomed.

N. F. W.
As a hardcore dog LOVER (they are our 4-legged children), this is sheer idiocy on stilts.

The war is lost when we on the right actually start proposing and supporting this sort of nonsense.

Pets
Give me a break Pet exemptions will just make the tax code more complex, and make it easier to cheat. My families pets would proably be worth about $20,000 in deductions, but I would be far better off with a maximum tax cap of 15%. If 10% is good enough for god, 15% should be good enough for Obama.

Not so far fetched (no pun intended)
Lol. We have the Left's "best and brightest" working 24/7 to figure out how they can weasel more tax hikes onto out backs...without making it look like a tax hike.

The only way a pet exemption would happen is if the Left (i.e. Obama) can use it as a fig leaf to disguise other tax hikes.

But here's a related thought. If we wind up with gay marriage (which I believe the courts will mandate via fiat), then we'll soon have polygamy...and it won't be long before someone tries to "marry" a pet (we've already had reported instances in Cali where people were having sex with their dogs...and quite proud of it too...perhaps the next fad from the "oh, so chic" crowd). I'd do it; just for the exemption.

Pets
Just what we need-more pets. When many people are having a hard time paying their bills for necessities, it surely would make sense to promote people having more by subsidizing having them by a tax deduction. After all, promotion of sub-prime loans by the Federal government has worked out so well.
Are dogs and cats designed for life inside a house or an apartment? I suppose they take the place of children so can contribute a little to making our birth rate even lower hastening the end of non-Muslim and non-black population.
Donald W. Bales

Pet exemptions
Give me a break. Love your animals but don't equate that to any other dependent. I have two adopted children. I have pets. I did not adopt them. I went through a lot to adopt my children. I picked up my pets at the pound. I think we need to get our priorities straight. When our tax code finally gets back to being family/child friendly with a realistic deduction for families with children, then we can talk about other deductions. Right now the deductions for dependents has not kept up with the cost of living. (I have nothing to gain from this by the way since my children are now adults.)

Pet exemptions
I have three rescue cats, two rescue dogs, and a non-rescue horse, even though I was told long ago to never own anything that eats while you sleep. HOWEVER, I strongly object to another layer of government interference in my life, even one that would save me money.

Pet Exemptions
I have always owned pets. I recently lost my best friend of 11 years. Lots of money to the vet kept him around for an extra 2 years.

I believe pets can make a home happier. But this tax exemption idea is stupid. Having a pet is a personal decision. Pass another stupid law and all you'll have are people running out to adopt a pet for tax time, then dumping them along the road somewhere.

Or are you planning to start IRS Pet audits? Less taxes paid, more money going to pay for government employees.

It's ridiculous ideas like this that make me ashamed to call myself a conservative. Is the entire world run from the looney bin anymore?

To all you nay-sayers jumping
to conclusions and downright moonbattery. Nowhere did she state that the exemption should be the same as for a child. Yes, the fair tax is my preferred system, but the benefits of pet ownership and the unbelievable increase in the cost of pet care makes this at least a debatable subject and not a reason for derision and scorn.

When the vet told me it would cost $800 for a biopsy of a small lump in my cat's ear. I nearly had a fit. If the biopsy were positive the vet said the treatment would be over $2000. Sorry, I don't have that kind of money for a free cat. I love my cat, but when the choice is between major debt and taking it day by day, guess what. That was 4 years ago and the cat is still just fine thank you without paying for an outrageous biopsy. If there were some tax relief, perhaps more pets would be able to receive proper treatment in their old age and I know first hand the benefits of pet ownership with my parents.

Just because we are conservative, doesn't mean we have to be stupidly heartless.

Evidence that pets improve our health...

I don't know about that.
We've got a dog for president and my stress levels are through the roof.


Disclaimer: To all libtards who are locked and loaded ready to scream "Racism" at any unflattering inferences to 'The One'; please note that I did NOT compare dear leader to a simian.

But, why not?
Using the "equality" ruse (I say "ruse" because homosexuals have the same, exact marital sexual rights at "hets" do,) the homosexual lobby will demand "spousal benefits for those whose oral or anal sex cannot possibly result in conception of human life, only HIV/AIDS.

Freaks at the Kinsey Institute condone sex with animals!

And Canada and other countries now allow a Moslem man to have four wives each with full legal benefits of a single wife, and the National Democrats WILL yield to this gibberish.

Some poor people who love their pets cannot afford the medical care. Loved pets sure benefit society and civilization morre than do sexual perverts or sexually irresponsible "sperm donors."

WHAT TO DO??

So why not a bone to animal lovers? They do more of benefit to society than the aforementioned riff-raff.

The governments is just printing more to solve money problems. No biggie. The coming Moslem majority can pay for it.

No wait! "They" hate & torture animals!!!

Whoops! I guess this is not politically correct.

Government Control
What's most disturbing about this, is the notion than some behavior should be rewarded by the government is being promoted on a 'conservative' blog.

Would Lisa be happy if the government passed a law that would fine all non pet owners?

Can anyone explain how exempting taxes for some behavior is any different than fining people for not exhibiting the behavior?

How has it come to pass the conservatives accept such a government role in controlling behavior?

Cheers

My friend; not a tax liability
I have been fortunate enough to adopt two beautiful Shetland Sheep Dogs; age 6 at adoption. The female had a heart problem and I spent several hundred dollars on her for the 4 years I had her. Then she died and broke my heart. Then I accepted a 6 year old male who has a thyroid problem. I still have him.
Others may feel that they should be a tax liability but I don't. I am not wealthy by any means, but I accepted them as they were and they are my responsibility.
I have grown children that I did count as dependents when they were under my roof, but that method was set up long ago.
I regret neither having children or dogs, But I love my dog as if it were a member of the family and I will personally take care of him as long as he lives without government assistance.

HOW ABOUT THE OPPOSITE

As I see it pets require that most jurisdictions have animal control departments. The expense of animal shelters and law enforcement (dog catchers), etc. Why should those that abide by my rules to 'never own anything that eats' pay a tax to pay for the services related to animal control?


TAX PET OWNERSHIP.

Kenneth
I hear you. I have owned dogs since childhood and every one of them has improved my life.

Good ole bad
It's true that kennels that shelter and dispose of dogs and cats are usually run at tax payer's expense, but animinal control spends much of it's time elsewhere. I doubt that you would like to be taxed on the rabid squirrel that is nexting in your attic, or be responsible for removing the dead deer that is decaying down the road.

Foolish Idea
Foolish ideas like this are exactly the reason that the Republicans have lost power in Washington. We should be for less government intrusion, not more, and targeted tax exemptions are the worst form of government management. This author should be fired from her job and banned from the site permanently. Let her stay home, pet her dog, and ask the messiah Obama for a handout. Pathetic drivel.

As a liberal
I also don't think pets should be tax -exempt, unless, possible, they are required for the blind or epilepsy disordered.

As for the yacht, I would like to own a church, in a building that requires three acress of prime commercial land. It will take alot of money for parking ramps, grounds maintenance, power, insurance, heat - very expensive, more than a yacht, in fact.

As a taxpayer, I think the government, that is you, moventure, should declare it tax free in order to defray the expsense. My grandkids would love you for it.

Golf
Golf improves my life. I think greens fees and cart rentals should be tax deductible. Throw in the beer , too. It makes as much sense as the dog.

April Fool
Now I get it. This column was intended to be published on April 1. Now it makes sense.

I hope this happens
I am not able to have children, therefore, I cannot get a tax credit for having children, even though it is not my faut. I am also handicapped. I rely on a service dog. This is something I need to get around. It is also living thing. I have to feed him, take him to the vet, etc. I do think I should be able to get a tax credit for him. It has been proven that animals provide a necessary service for humans in different forms of therapy.

I really don't see how golf improves your life. You get exercise benefits from it, but not if you use a cart, Charles.

Personal decision
Yes, a pet is a personal decision. My service dog is also a personal decision. Children are also personal decisions. You should not get a tax credit for children either as they do not contribute to society until they are old enough to work. By the way, even though I am disabled, I work two jobs. I do not get SSI. I am tired of the able bodied who cry "depression" to get SSI. But that's another story.

Don't call her a conservative
Under what pretense does a CONSERVATIVE assert that the Federal government has a right, never mind an obligation, to subsidize pet ownership?

Funny Take on Obama's Dog, etc...
If you want a fresh look, check out this blogger. He gets it, and it's funny! http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-chooses-d og-church.html

Jackie
When you say "service dog", exactly what do you mean? Are you blind, or just what is your handicap? Did you pay for the dog yourself, or is it already funded by some government program or charity? If so, this might be "double-dipping."

What you and others need to understand is that for every exemption, deduction, or other special tax treatment, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and someone else needs to pay higher taxes to subsidize your handout.

Golf improves my life by letting me forget, for a few hours, all the Socialist bloodsuckers who steal my hard-earned money. As for the cart, many golf courses give you no option, and require a cart on weekends, which is the only time most working people can play.

IRS
The american citizen got to be taxed directly by the federal government by CHANGING 1 word in the constitution.
Also at the same time we lost our REAL senators and aquired superrepresentatives.
the latter is why the senate is disconnected from the state and loyal to the federal government.
the founders and authors of the constitution put in the rules to protect citizens.

an amendment is not changing words in the constitution. that is totally unconstitutional to change the meaning and intent on our national contract with the elected officials.

adios,
ab
lancaster, prop8ifornia
push 1 for english in america you gringo dummies

got kibble?

But where do you draw the line?
So 1 or 2 pets can inmprove our health, and I admit choosing to not have a pet because of the cost, but what about those people who collect animals just for the heak of it. Do they get to write off all 105 cats or 14 dogs just because they can't say no to the pleading eyes of the animal at the Humane Society. If this is a serious possibilty then thay need to draw a line. Where the benefits of the pet (one or 2) may help but not allow it to be abused.

Wrong Way to Love Your Pets
There are far too many special interest groups getting unfair tax breaks that the rest of us end up paying for. As conservatives, we need to be working towards reducing the favoritism and copmplexity of the tax code, not adding to it. Pets are family -- we love them and care for them -- we don't need a taxpayer subsidy for that. Yes, I understand that the high cost of medical care for animals is extremely difficult to meet. My wife and I have just spent thousands of dollars on chemotherapy for our beloved golden retreiver. Judging by her last checkup, we're in for another round of chemo. It will take us years to pay off these bills, but she is worth it. Even though it is a financial hardship for us, I will not even think about asking the already overloaded taxpayer to foot the bill, and neither should anyone else.

MISSING THE POINT
DEAR FELLOW AMERICANS ,, I HAVE READ MOST OF THE COMMENTS AND MANY ARE MISSING THE POINT -- FORGET FOR RIGHT NOW EVERYONES DEBATE OVER FAIR TAX OR FLAT TAX --THAT IS A DIFFERENT BATTLE THAT MAY OR MAYNOT BE TAKEN ON ANY TIME SOON ---- WHILE MY OWN IS FOR THE FLAT TAX AS THE FAIR TAX WILL BE DECONSTRUCTED BY THOSE BETTER ABLE TO EXPLAIN. LET ME DISCUSS THE PET EXEMPTION -- JUST ON A PURELY FINANCIAL REASON THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE --IN THAT IT WILL PUT MORE MONEY INTO THE ECONOMY--- IT IS PROVEN THAT OUR PETS HELP WITH BOTH THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL WELLBEING OF THOSE THAT HAVE THEM. TENS OF MILLIONS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY IS WASTED ON STATE RUN ANIMAL PROGRAMS . HOW CAN CONSERVATIVES NOT EMBRACE THIS --- IT IS TIME YOU ALL REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IDEA --- DAVI: Our pets are family, too - Washington Times

MISSING THE POINT CONTINUED
ALSO --THIS WOULD NOT COST THE TAXPAYERS A CENT. RATHER, IT SAVES THEM MONEY...MANY DO CONSIDER THEIR PETS FAMILY MEMBERS . ---WOULD'NT IT BE NICE TO HAVE AN ISSUE THAT SAVES MONEY TO OVERLY TAX BURDENED AMERICANS , PROVIDE A NECESSARY HEALING AND MEDICAL BENEFIT , AND HELP OUR OVERALL ECONOMY..

Borrow from Peter to pay Paul
What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that our Federal deficit is $$ so the government must get $$ amount from us the people. More deductions only garauntee higher taxes overall because we all know that the beast (government) must be paid...

PET TAX-EXEMPTION INITIATIVE
Thank you for your support. If you would like to interview animal welfare activist Leo Grillo, give me a call.

http://www.sharonraifordbush.wordpress.com
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.