Woman sues IRS to have pets classified as dependents
(archive.ph)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
Is it bad part of me hopes she wins just to fuck over the IRS?
the IRS will just pass the damages on to you, the taxpayer
My thoughts exactly, I would not cry if this won, would just make a flatter tax schedule. Responsible people in their early twenties might be able to have 3 goldfish and and not be taxed out of their ass, enabling them to save up to have a family, instead of only welfare scum having children that early.
Deranged people not having children, turning animals into their ''furbabies''.
Soon : petstores accepting food stamps.
Incoming dog nutter yapping about how his dog saved his life, we don't deserve dogs, and my dog is better than people.
Meanwhile the mutt, or cat, would eat you if you were incapacitated long enough.
Cats go to town on your corpse almost immediately. Some dog breeds hold out for a while.
I've been plotting on how to capitalize on the rise of "dog moms" because they're turning 40+ now and they'll spend all their money on pet related shit. So far I haven't hit on anything tho and the market seems well covered. But I'm convinced there's still huge opportunity there...
Probably pet pharmaceuticals, everything else pet related has a low barrier of entry.
Could farmers and ranchers declare their animals as dependents?
They are seen as business expenses so can be subtracted from tax
Thanks, that clears up some questions for me
Farmers and ranchers get enough subsidies and tax breaks for participating in the government's pet projects they dont need to worry about it.
Might be a good trade-off except the cat ladies might get a huge break
Do you want the flip side of that legal coin when they they traffic or butcher their "children". Guess it could work for horse "farms"
I don't enough about tax law to understand all the ramifications which is why I'm asking
She gets laughed out of court. Dependents need a SSN/TIN. The reason for the concept in taxes is because the payer is taking care of the dependent rather than them being a burden of the state.
A dog would not become a burden of the state. At least not permanently. So there is no reason for the state to give someone caring for a dog preferential tax treatment. The state doesn't give a fuck about the dog's role in her life.
The only exception is legitimately disabled people with specifically-trained service animals (which are not considered pets) to deduct some expenses. Again, this is not out of the goodness of the state's heart. It is because it's cheaper than the social services would be.
I hope they audit that bitch into oblivion. She's obviously a net drain on society, the sooner she freezes on the streets the better off the world will be.
She works full time in order to funnel some wild percentage of society’s productivity into her disinterested cats.
So if she wins (she won't) anyone can claim that they feed 100 stray cats that are all dependents.
I would definitely encourage that to fuck over the natalist vermin.
Fuck natalists. This might force the ridiculousness of birth subsidies into the open.