California Proposes Taxing Pet Care

Petside Blog
|
Poll Archive
|
A-Z
- AAHA
- Beds
- Bones
- Books
- Bowls
- Carriers
- Cat Food
- Catnip
- Collars
- Crates
- Dog Food
- Grooming Tools
- Leashes
- Pet Food
- Pet Picture
- Pet Store
- Pharmacy
- Toys
- Treats

| Print | By | February 5, 2009 10:43 AM

By: Jo Singer

I am worried! Very worried!

It seems that California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is planning to support a pending legislation which will help bolster the state's economy by defining veterinary care for sick, diseased or distressed animals as a "luxury" item. A proposed 10.5% tax may be levied on veterinary medical services. Veterinarians will be taxed in the same manner as any other commercial vender, equating a beloved pet to other items which are now taxable.

With 15 million dogs and cats presently residing in California, living with responsible owners, almost $2.75 billion are spent on veterinary care. This does not include the cost of pet food and other necessary supplies. With the economy strangling in dire straits, I cannot get my head wrapped around what I consider to be insanity.

Photo credit: Jim Arnold http://www.jarnoldphoto.biz/

With rising unemployment, and folks forced to sacrifice what are actual luxury items, such as fancy cars and big screen TVs, I cannot understand why the state of California is planning to single out and penalize pet owners for taking prudent care of their animals.

Rising veterinary costs alone often make it difficult and often impossible for caring and responsible owners to provide routine veterinary care, which often results in difficult and painful choices in how to spend their dollars.

As far as I am concerned this proposed tax contradicts the tireless work in which animal welfare groups are involved, to raise public awareness about the importance of proper veterinary care. These veterinary services are not a luxury, they are a necessity!

Should this "luxury" tax pass, many people will be discouraged from providing the care that their animals require. Just because they choose to bring an animal into their home do they need to be punished? The cost of neutering and spaying may be out of reach for many, so animal population control will be deleteriously affected. Who is going to bear the cost of these unwanted animals's care?

But what most concerns me the most, if this bill passes, is the effect it may have on the rest of the country. Perhaps other states will then join the bandwagon to raise needed funds. Then pet ownership will be almost impossible for many of us.

California pet owners can raise their voice protesting this plan by informing Governor Schwarzenegger that this is unacceptable, by calling his office. Since this is an automated call, it takes about 20 seconds to participate. Pick up your phone and call 1- 916-445-2841. Then press 1 for English. Press 5 for the veterinary tax proposal. You will be asked to press 1 if you are calling about the veterinary tax proposal. Then press 1. Then press 2 to oppose the tax. Share this information with your California friends and family as well.

If California pet lovers can defeat this bill, it will certainly have the desired impact upon the rest of the Country. Please take action before it is too late.

What is your opinion of Governor Schwarzenegger's support of this pending legislation? Do you agree or disagree? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts.

RELATED TOPICS: Blogs (262) , Pet Ownership (18) , Politics (11)

« Previous

Anonymous February 5, 2009 5:03 PM

I couldn't pick up the phone fast enough to oppose this. This is just ridiculous. Veterinary care is already very expensive and many people can't afford it in the first place. This would be horrible if this passed.

Anonymous February 5, 2009 5:19 PM

My question is: who wrote the original legislation? Schwarzenegger is merely supporting it. Who initiated it?

Anonymous February 5, 2009 6:03 PM

Wow that is a disgrace. It is hard enough to afford vet care without a tax put on it as well. It is a necessity not a luxury for our pets and shouldn't be viewed as one. I for one would rathere them tax the heck out of tobacco and liquor (definitely not necessities in my book) and leave medical care for our pets alone. I know times are tight but this is the wrong way to go.
-Joanne

Anonymous February 5, 2009 7:04 PM

This is totally and absolutely ludicrous!!! Would California' Governor Schwarzenegger consider taxing health care for infants and children, too? Our pets are as helpless and dependent as our children when it comes to their health care. It's up to us to see that they are kept healthy, and taxing those efforts will severely impact the health of our animals.

It's not the amount of money we've spent on our pets that has put the economy of this country in such a distastrous emergency, and taxing us for taking care of our pets isn't going to bring the economy back into focus. Let Schwartzenegger find his dollars elsewhere and leave us pet lovers alone! We're paying enough taxes on so-called "luxuries" such as food and gas. Our pets are NOT luxuries. In many cases, they are the only comfort some of us have.

Skylark

Anonymous February 5, 2009 7:07 PM

This is already a reality in New York State.

Anonymous February 5, 2009 7:21 PM

I am sOooooooo glad I no longer live in CA!!!!!! The government seems to be going from the sublime to the ridiculous!!! This proposed bill is part of the ridiculous. Keep up the good work, dear Jo.

annie!

Anonymous February 5, 2009 7:23 PM

This is just flat infuriating. Pet ownership is not a luxury, it's an accepted responsibilty. Pet owners enjoy better health (which leads to lower medical bills), their children learn valuable responsibility and learn to respect life in general. To make pet owners accountable for all the state deficits by making them pay unreasonable vet bills is pathetic. This is going to, at the very least- prevent pet owners from taking their animals to be spayed and neutered - thereby raising the cost of animal control- not to mention not getting them vaccinated and spreading disease.
Get real Arnold. Try taxing fast-food places or pre-cooked dinners (make folks cook real meals for a change and have families sit down to a dinner table instead of a pizza in front of the TV), coffee shops for yuppies who just cant go without a supreme latte every day, increased taxes on video games, or how about increasing taxes on people that drive Hummers as a status symbol?
Margie

Anonymous February 6, 2009 5:25 AM

This is a poor decision on his part. Having a pet is NOT a "luxury" but a healthy and beneficial deciosion both for the pet and the person(s) they share their lives with. As the article states, vet care is already expensive enough so why on earth make it any worse by taxing it?

Animals a living, beneficial beings who do contribute to our way of life. Why punish us for just sharing love?

Anonymous February 6, 2009 9:00 AM

Absolutely not! None of this so called bailout would have happened if the government didn't allow the companies to move over seas. Is nothing sacred any more in this country? I don't even want to imagine how this will effect animal care in this country. What a aweful thought that brings to mind.

Anonymous February 7, 2009 10:58 PM

This is a nightmare waiting to happen, for sure...Gee,trying to balance budgets on the backs of pets...Good grief!

Anonymous February 11, 2009 11:15 AM

I am so furious! I picked up my phone immediately and plan on calling every chance I get! This is just not right!!!! And who will suffer? Our 4-legged children!!!!
We MUST stop this! Please help!
Hope Morton
Catheys Valley CA

Anonymous February 11, 2009 11:43 PM

I work for a vet and this tax would cause a higher increase in animals not getting the proper care they need and there will a higher raise in healthy animals being put to sleep.

Anonymous April 1, 2009 1:25 PM

im on a fixed income and have an 18 year old dog who has liver desease so needs special meds I can barely afford now I love my pet but vet care may have to take a back seat to my own care.

add your comment