|
TAX PLAN UPDATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2009
Thanks to an overwhelming response from concerned California pet-lovers, the proposed veterinary tax has been rejected. This tax-proposal would have made it more costly to give animals the medical care and attention they need. Thankfully, pet-owners will not have to be forced into making tough choices about their pet's medical care due to taxes.
December '08: OPPOSITION TO TAX PLAN
At a special legislative session held on November 6, 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed increasing sales tax and levying new taxes on certain services, including veterinary services, in order to address the state’s current budget crisis.
On November 19, the San Diego Humane Society and SPCA expressed opposition to this proposed tax in a letter sent to the Governor and copied to key members of the state legislature, local government representatives and veterinary medicine associations.
November 19, 2008
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor, State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
On behalf of the San Diego Humane Society and SPCA and its over 40,000 supporters, I would like to join the California Veterinary Medical Association and San Diego Veterinary Medical Association in expressing strong opposition to the tax on veterinary services as proposed in the“Governor’s Budget: Special Session 2008-09” document.
California clearly appreciates the value of animal lives and the importance of the sacred bond that exists between people and their pets. Law enforcement recognizes this bond through animal welfare laws that include providing veterinary care for one’s pet; federal and state disaster response agencies have recognized this bond with new regulations that include evacuating pets during disasters; and health care professionals acknowledge this bond with the daily use of pet-therapy animals. So, why would California lawmakers treat medical procedures and treatments that save the lives of these animals as equal to disposable income purchases, such as repairing a television, playing a round of golf, or indulging in alcohol? Financially strapped Californians can choose not to purchase these luxury items, yet they cannot by law refuse to purchase veterinary services for their pets without being faced with significant consequences.
The cost of delivering quality healthcare has increased over the past several years and veterinary services are no exception. With pet owners representing nearly 60 percent of the population, this proposal may put many struggling families in the difficult position of not being able to afford treatment for their beloved pet, causing them to make decisions that may be either financially and/or emotionally devastating. This proposal could result in an increased burden on public and private animal shelters across the state, as families relinquish pets, whom they can no longer care for financially. Adding taxes to the cost of veterinary care only serves to add further deterrents to treating sick and injured animals and may also dissuade people from adopting, leading to even more crowding at shelters.
Furthermore, because this proposal does not include levying taxes against other medical/healing services, we find it unfair and discriminatory that veterinary services have been singled out. It inappropriately sends the message that veterinary care is somehow optional and unimportant. Veterinarians are a critical part of the state’s health and human services system and should be acknowledged as such. Some medical threats to human health can start in animal populations, from viruses to tainted food (i.e. rabies, mad cow disease etc.). We need to keep our veterinarians valued as part of the public health team, and taxing their services creates new barriers to providing important veterinary care that could prevent the spread of disease in both humans and pets.
Perhaps, the most upsetting side effect of this new tax proposal is the devaluing of the human-animal bond that is felt by all pet lovers. This plan represents a backward shift in current ideology when it comes to pet ownership. As a society, we morally support and legally are required to care for the well-being of our pets. Basic veterinary care cannot be considered a luxury as are the other items in this proposal and therefore should not be subject to the same taxes. And it seems that most of the country agrees with this, as 47 other states do not tax veterinary services.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose this proposal as it stands with implementing taxes on veterinary services.
Respectfully,
Mark Goldstein, D.V.M., CAWA
President, San Diego Humane Society and SPCA
|
