Limited resources
Regarding my opposition to allowing pet owners to deduct pet medical care from their taxes, robot-heart-politics writes:
Why does it have to be either human suffering or animal suffering? Why does it have to be, “I’m not interested in doing anything to help these animals’ suffering until we do something to help all animal suffering?”
Tax credits aren’t free.
What’s the goal of this tax credit? Are we primarily trying to help the pet owners or the pets? Or are we just trying to avoid a public safety problem from abandoned animals? If we’re trying to help the pet owners, why are we only helping pet owners? If it’s a public safety problem, why not do this in the least expensive manner possible (which, unfortunately, may not end so well for some of the pets). And if it’s the pets, I don’t think that’s an appropriate use of limited public funds.
If we want to alleviate the suffering of animals, we could do a whole lot more with our money by focusing on our agricultural practices. We could outlaw or put a special tax on veal. We could enforce our laws against transporting horses in doubledecker cattle cars. We could subsidize alternatives to confined animal feeding operations. But, as a culture, we don’t particularly care about animal suffering—so long as we don’t have to know about it.
You shouldn’t need a tax credit to take care of your pets anymore than you should need a tax credit to brush your teeth or change your underwear. And yes, I’m very aware that a lot of people are suffering in a lot of ways. That’s why I’m inclined to focus our resources on alleviating human suffering.
