I have to say I'm not liking this bill either. It will probably encourage more pet abuse than anything, especially if a person would get more of a tax break the more pets he has. Just look at the welfare system: people get more money for having more kids, and despite that the additional money doesn't completely cover the cost of caring for additional kids, people still have more kids just to get more welfare money.

If you don't have the money to take care of a pet--including possible vet bills--then you shouldn't have it.

Now, I know there are special circumstances where this would be incredibly helpful. Murphy's Law tells us that when our money is tight, the vet bills start pouring in. A law like this would be incredibly helpful to anyone who is going through a [temporary] tough time, financially, but doesn't want to give up his pets.

If they made an amendment to this bill that limited the amount of time and/or amount of tax breaks any household could get, then I might look on it more favorably.