Your topic MultiBoxing Guide: Part Two was interesting when I found it on Thursday searching for pet gear…

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 How difficult will it be to…

Please point out to me ANYTIME in the Hisotry of the US, where we actualy CUT spending on a Government wide basis?

Maybe at the end of a couple of wars, as war spending ended… but certainly never during Peace time.

Romeo13 on September 29, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Straight off the top of my head, look into Jefferson’s term when he decommissioned every vessel in the US Navy. Also, during the Gilded Age we ran some hefty surpluses year after year.

Stipulating the government is going to keep growing, so everybody has to concede the govt has first draw on their earnings, is one nasty stipulation. It deserves to be challenged. It should not be a tacit basis from which to denounce a citizen for keeping more of what they create.

My issue with The Race Card’s comments is that they have been vulgar in the extreme. If I were to quote them, I’m sure I’d be kicked off. I complained to AllahP twice to no avail.

BigD on September 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Sorry that I misunderstood you. Yes. That is a problem I have seen as well with his posts.

I guess it was an appropriate title…it was used in Must Love Dogs!

By contrast, a tax exemption for pets would add to the education and rescue efforts and bring an added incentive to responsible prospective pet owners.

How so?

While I like the idea of encouraging people to rescue pets rather than buy them, I think there are some major issues with this.
Are they talking about a tax deduction for rescued pets only? What if you go and buy an expensive pure bred, would they expect the exemption apply? What would stop animal abusers from getting pets just to claim them as a deduction?

Initially, I thought it might be a good idea for a tax benefit on the adoption costs only, they have gone up over the years and it might encourage adoption. However, again what is to stop people from adopting just to get the tax benefit and then abuse the animal, and how would anyone know if you still had the pet.

You pay enough taxes already, any tax break for any purpose takes money away from their government and leaves it in your pocket.

keep the change on September 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM

I would agree with you, except that (1) the goobermint will just raise another tax somewhere to make up the difference and (2) I’m in favor of simplifying the tax code.

No, its fxxxing stupid.

Now a tax break for guns….

I can just see the IRS agents coming around to people’s homes each spring.

If they can get by my “tax deductable” pit bull terrier…….hmmmm

Nope. Cut spending and you don’t need so much revenue.

Chris_Balsz on September 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Please point out to me ANYTIME in the Hisotry of the US, where we actualy CUT spending on a Government wide basis?

Maybe at the end of a couple of wars, as war spending ended… but certainly never during Peace time.

Problem is that the Government needs revenue to run itself. If it does NOT take that revenue from one class, it will eventualy HAVE to get that revenue from somewhere else…
Thus, long run, your Tax deductions, becomes everyone elses Tax increase… eventualy.
TANSTAAFL… There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Romeo13 on September 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Nope. Cut spending and you don’t need so much revenue.

I can definitely see a tax break for service animals, but not pets.