Subscribe to this BlogConsumer Spending Goes to the Dogs (and Cats)
In this year of the great belt tightening pet owners continue to give themselves a long leash to keep shelling out for Fido and Fluffy. The American Pet Products Association estimates we’ll spend $45.5 billion on pets this year, a 5% increase since 2008 and a near 60% jump from our 2001 pet outlays. This comes at a time when June retail sales were about 10% lower than a year earlier and a Gallup survey of weekly consumer expenditures in mid-August was nearly 30% lower from a year ago.
Pet expenditures aren’t merely a kibble and kitty litter story. The APPA reports that 19% of pet owners admit to buying a “designer” item. Exhibit A: The $935 price tag for the large version of this cat condo would cover a few months of mortgage payments for plenty of human condos on the market.
But it’s not just about the pet bling. Basic food and care is driving some very big bottom lines. Nestle recently reported a 9% year-over-year pickup in its pet care division; PetSmart recently doubled its dividend payout, and drug maker Sanofi-Aventis SA is paying Merck $4 billion to buy its 50% share of animal health-care manufacturer Merial. Sanofi’s CEO told The Wall Street Journal that Merial sales are up 50% the past five years and the firm’s operating margin is near 30%.
I know all about that trend; the epileptic dog sleeping at my feet as I write this requires twice-daily medication, and will see her vet more this year than I have seen my primary care physician in the past decade.
But I just had to sigh in disbelief at a House Resolution introduced last month that would allow an annual tax deduction of up to $3,500 a year for “qualified pet expenses." No, I am not making this up. As Howard Gleckman so pithily wrote at the Tax Vox blog, this non-essential tax break seems a bit out of touch for the times given the massive federal deficit. What’s your take on this pet project?
What an absolute boondoggle. Tax break for pets? Give me a break.
Pets are luxuries, pure and simple. I love my cat, but I don't need or want a tax break for her.
As a pet owner, I do think that a lot of the things we all give to our pets are luxuries but I would definitely support tax deductions for the cost of spay/neuter procedures and rabies vaccinations. These deductions could save money on the shelter system and protect the broader base of tax payers from disease.
Just because you like something, or it may be good for you in your situation, doesn't mean it deserves a tax deduction. (I promise I won't ask for a tax deduction for the organic food I buy.)
On top of that, what you consider good for you may not be good for others; for example, my family can no longer use the city park within walking distance of our home since it's been turned into a dog park, with the attendant dog fights and feces everywhere. That is not a situation that should be encouraged with public funds.
My question is, what constitutes a "qualified" pet expense? If it's for a seeing-eye dog or a working animal, I can understand.
Don't you think the industries that produce these items are part of the economy? My household of rescued cats actually work for me as artist models so I'd love to be able to deduct the quality diet and basic vet care they get, and it certainly helps the economy go round when someone purchases a piece of artwork, photograph, notecard or handmade pet item from me. Personally, I think people are spending more wastefully when they spend hundreds on "stuff" that ends up ditting around the house until it ends up on craigslist or freecycle. At least the spending on pets is supporting a living, loving creature who leaves its mark on a person's heart forever.
I believe we should have tax deductions for qualified expenses for dogs and cats who live with us as family members. Working dogs, especially, provide valuable services to humans as well as the family pets who provide companionship and love.
In a couple of decades or less, when the USA has finally and completely gone bankrupt due to congressional overspending, we'll be eating our pets. May as well keep them healty now.
I suggest you look for FDA or EPA approved products – which HAVE undergone scientfiic scrutiny. In my opinion (as a consumer of both) dogs & cats receive much better health care than humans – to the extent the vet offers and the owner obliges.
If you doubt that pets very positively impact human health, please read:
- Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul
- Chicken Soup for the Cat & Dog Lover's Soul
- The Healing Power of Pets
-or any other book authored by Dr. Marty Becker
This is not up for debate folks…it is FACT..that chapter is closed!
Tax deductions for pets? That is rich.
There is enough fraud in the tax system to begin with. To the feds really want to encourage more with "pet deductions". And, isn't the tax man claiming his revenues are down while he's spending like a drunken sailor?
What a dumb idea.
I like the tax deduction proposed for pet expenses for Betty Boop who works for her income. After all, the wealthy get to deduct expenses for investment advice to make money on nonwork capital plus they pay a lower income tax rate on the income of capital gains that working Betty will never have an opportunity to do. Betty Boop deserves a tax break to take care of fido and poo poo.
I dont believe people need an "Incentive to buy and properly raise a pet", THAT $3,500 Tax Credit is a waste of money. Having 3 cats myself, strongly believe if you cant afford a pet, dont get one.
This is coming from a person who did get the housing and energy credits for a house.
The housing credits (totally $9,500 at most), got $7,400. Good incentive.
Just because you "get money incentives" to get and take care of a pet, dosnt mean you should or can take care of one.
– Spencer
SCOTT….I totally agree with you. I recently lost one of my cats; a much loved 14 yr old,to breast cancer & I still miss her every day. I just adopted a former stray & she's a total love. Pets are important to a family & ours were always regarded as family members when I was a kid in the late '50s. When my dog,who was given to me as a puppy by my grandpop when I was 3,was killed by a pickup truck when I was 14. My parents,little brother, & I all cried like babies & we had a funeral service for him.
Municipal animal shelters (as well as private facilities) are overflowing with pets dropped off by people who can no longer afford to care for their animals. The cost of caring for these animals is a burden on counties, and that's without taking into connsideration the emotional cost of euthanizing between 3 and 4 million animals per year, according to estimates by the Humane Society of the United States. If we can underwrite Cash for Clunkers so that people can buy new cars, why not Cash for Critters so that people can keep their beloved pets?
Jackie Fuchs
LA Cat Care Examiner
Examiner.com
In tough times pets as always are a part of the family and a source of comfort. This applies across demographic groups. A loss of a pet in any manner whether by death or an inability to afford the pet's upkeep is emotionally traumatic to a family. As to your comment it is non-essential, think about it and other expenditures that are made and tax benefits granted and I believe you should rethink your position. I am an attorney with tax expertise and would love to discuss this with you vis a vis the bail outs to save our financial institutions and other tax perks granted industries. I will provide cites on request. Your position decries family values and families. You are out of touch with the fact that pets in tough times provide an essential gift to families to cope with those times. There is medical proof which you may also want to consult. I would challenge you to provide the estimate of the cost of the deduction versus the cost of other benefits for that non-essential research and industry tax benefits. Your position in anti-family and un-american.
The pet industry is developing very fast, but there's still a lot of products and poor quality. Pet products are still not inspected as human products are. We need to improve this quickly. Low-quality products means more vet bills.
Daniela Caride
http://www.TheDailyTail.com
Publisher
The attorney challenges an opponent of this silly idea to prove that the costs don't outweigh the benefits. Isn't this backwards? Shouldn't proponents of new government spending have to provide the hard numbers, not the other way around?