Here's some tax advice from the National Tax Advice Day web site on the tax implications of medical expenses:
There are three key areas where your health and medical-related expenses come into play with your tax return: deductions, disability and credits.
Deductions
Taxpayers can elect to deduct certain expenditures from adjusted gross income rather than claim the standard deduction. These expenditures, listed as itemized deductions, include medical expenses.
But in order to deduct your medical expenses, they must be more than 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income, and of course you must be able to itemize. So, your medical expenses need to be fairly large in order to deduct them.
Medical expenses that can be itemized can include the cost of medical insurance, prescriptions, out of pocket medical expenses, and mileage to and from medical facilities. As far as your health care insurance premiums, they cannot be deducted if they are taken out of your paycheck as pre-tax dollars.
Actually, having your health insurance premiums taken out pre-tax may well be a greater benefit because of the AGI limitation on medical expense on the return. And, while "after tax" health insurance premiums are deductible, they are still subject to a 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income limitation (unless you're self-employed, in which case you may be able to deduct your health insurance premiums even if you don’t itemize).
Since medical bills are deductible only to the extent that they total more than 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income, timing your payments may be the only way to garner a tax benefit from these costs. By now, you should have a good idea whether you'll pass the 7.5 percent floor. If it's doubtful, try to hold off paying any medical bills or scheduling medical exams and procedures until the following year, when they might have some tax-saving power.
On the other hand, if you are close to or already over the threshold, see what you can do to pump up the deduction. One sure way, of course, is to pay any outstanding medical bills, including health insurance premiums, by Dec. 31. Also, consider scheduling, being billed for, and paying for elective medical and dental work before the end of the year. The same goes if you need new glasses, contact lenses, dentures, a hearing aid, or modifications to a car to enable a handicapped person to drive.
You should ask a tax professional for specifics, but there are medical expenses you can claim that you may not be aware of, and some items that may seem like logical deductions but are not deductions. For example, you cannot deduct the expenses you pay using your employer's cafeteria plan or flexible spending arrangement.
You may be able to deduct some medical care expenses if they are necessary to a particular disease. For example, the cost of adult diapers would be deductible if your elderly parent needed them as a result of a disease, such as Alzheimer's.
Disability
If you are receiving disability payments, you could be required to pay taxes on all or a percentage of your disability payments, depending on the type of disability payment you're receiving and who pays the premiums.
Generally, ordinary disability income is not taxable to the extent that the taxpayer recipient paid the premiums. Amounts received that are related to premiums your employer paid are most likely taxable. Social security disability is taxed under the usual rules for social security. Workers’ compensation is not taxable.
If your adjusted gross income is below $25,000, you may be able to claim the credit for the elderly and disabled.
If you are caring for a disabled person, you could be eligible to claim the dependent care credit. Disabled individuals must be unable to care for themselves to qualify you for the credit. A disability is that which prevents an individual from engaging in any substantial gainful activity because of a medically determined physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death, or that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
Credits
A key health-related credit is the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC), a program that can help pay for nearly two-thirds of eligible individuals' health plan premiums.
The HCTC assists three very specific groups: TRA Recipients, ATAA Benefit Recipients, and Pension Benefit Recipients of the PBGC. If you fit into one of these groups, you may be eligible to receive the credit.
TRA recipients are people who receive a Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA), including those individuals who are eligible for a TRA but have not used up their unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. ATAA benefit recipients are workers who are at least 50 years of age who receive a certain percentage of the wage differential between the wages of their previous, adversely-affected employment and their new full-time employment. And, PBGC recipients are those individuals who are at least 55 years old and receive pension benefits from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., or who received a lump sum payment from the PBGC after Aug. 5, 2002. You may also qualify if you are at least 55 years old and you currently receive PBGC benefits as a survivor, a beneficiary, or as an alternate payee.
But you are not eligible for the HCTC if you are enrolled in a health plan maintained by your or your spouse's current or former employer that pays at least 50 percent of the cost of coverage. Any share of your premium that is paid by you or your spouse on a pre-tax basis is considered to have been paid by your employer and must be included as such when determining the percentage of employer coverage.
Also, you are not eligible Health Coverage Tax Credit if you are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B, are enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), Medicaid, or State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or are entitled to health coverage through the U.S. military health system (this does not include health coverage received as a Veterans Affairs (VA) benefit.)
For tax-related questions, FMF recommends: H&R Block. Do it yourself or have us do it. It's never been easier.
Comments: Sell Your House to Save Your Pet's Life
If you haven't noticed, there's been a lively exchange between a couple FMF readers over the past few days. The issue started with my post titled Sell Your House to Save Your Pet's Life which detailed some of the expensive medical care decisions pet owners faced. I ended by commenting:
1. Pets are an expense, and you need to consider this before you get one. Sure, it's a reasonable financial decision to have a pet (it's your choice what to spend your money on), but realize what you're getting your budget in for. In the end, you may have to choose between getting a pet and sending a kid to college.
2. If you don't believe pets can be expensive, look at the words that appear above:
3. All this "pets are the same as children" talk is driving me crazy. I've had pets and I have children and all I have to say is that there's a HUGE difference between what I'd do to save one of my children (I'd do anything) and what I'd do to save a beloved pet (weigh the cost/benefit as one reader above commented). Pets may be similar to children in some ways, but come on, people, would you really do as much for a pet as you would for your child? If so, that means you'd do anything it would take to keep that pet alive one more day. You'd sell your house to heal your pet. You'd quit your job to stay home with the pet. You'd borrow as much money as you could to keep it on life support. These are things you'd do for a child -- but would you (or does anyone) really do this for a pet?
In response, Bruce left the following comment:
One observation I've made about the "pets are equivalent to children" people is that 90% of the time they are childless, and clueless. They make those statements, and we parents catch each others' eyes and we *know* what the others are thinking. We know that this person has no clue, and that the only reason we aren't tearing into the paper wall of their cluelessness is that we are being nice. The sad thing is that often, the person often seems to think he or she is being cute or endearing, when it has just the opposite effect to many.
Still, even if I am projecting most of that (which I may very well be), it makes me grit my teeth each and every time. Decide beforehand how much you will pay. Perhaps leverage your maximum amount by purchasing 80/20 pet health insurance. But decide and don't feel bad that you've put a number on a life.
For me, that number is $1500 for either of my dogs. That's it, and that would be only if I thought the dog had a chance of living a pain-free, long life afterwards. For my cats, $200, but don't tell my kids that number. For my chickens, $0, since they are old and I could use new vigorous egg-layers. :)
Mike took exception with Bruce's thoughts and commented the following:
I can partially see the first commentors point (Bruce) about the majority of the "pets are the same as children" are childless. Not clueless however. I have made that pets [are the] same as children statement a number of times, and as was mentioned in the post, most (if not all) people, probably including me would go to as extreme an extent, like selling your house, to save a pets life as for a childs life. Obviously I wouldn't have first hand experience with making decisions like that with a child, but I am willing to bet most of the readers of this blog, including the first commentor have had to either, so you really can't say what you would do. My point, which I have mentioned before here and elsewhere, is that if you are a responsible person, maybe even just a "humane" person, you shouldn't have a set "death limit" for your pet. When my dog started having all the problem he did, some of which were similar to the one in this article, like the monthly fee for life part.
Your saying...as many of the commentors have, that you will just stop at $1500, and that is only if you decide it is "worth it". So what happens when you hit $1500? Do you tell your kid "sorry Timmy, we had to kill Sparky because if we spent any more, I would be dipping into the cable bill, and daddy would rather watch the superbowl."
That to me is irresponsible and is just plain wrong. You shouldn't be going into owning a pet with his death sentance already planned out. Sure, everything has its and I, just like probably anyone else that said they view their pets as children, would do whatever was necessary to save my kid. You're not even giving your dog a chance. If your not willing to even attempt to make a sacrifice to save your pet, maybe even if it is only for another year, then you just plain shouldn't have one. Get a fish tank, they are cheaper and don't live as long.
You would really feel fine going to sleep the night after you put your dog to sleep when you hit that $1500 mark? especially knowing that their are plenty of reasonable sacrifices you could have made. It wouldn't....and didn't sit well with me to think that I chose cable TV, a better car, high speed internet access, a cell phone, or whatever other amenities you can think of over a pet...a companion...and a member of a member of the family, like your child, but I don't think anyone said that they would treat both the same.
Setting a limit of $200 on a cat? many of them live a good 20 years. That is just cruel, which again ties into the whole child thing. When you read in the paper about some parent who had been abusing their kid or depriving the child in some way, that is cruel, and shouldn't happen. Obviously not the same as with a pet, but a reasonable person can understand the differance. People spend $200 going to dunkin donuts. That is worth more than spending a little on your cat?
If you go into getting a pet with its death tally already planned out. Just do everyone who actually likes their pets a favor and just not get it.
I spent a ton of money to save my dog. He lived at least 2 years extra just because of that. The sacrifices I made were petty and insignificant. But I, am my dog enjoyed those 2 extra years. When the dog had to be put down when nothing else could be done, my younger brother had a real tough time dealing with it. The decision was all mine since it was my dog, but he lived with that dog his entire life, and now he had to watch him get put down. Fortunately he is old enough to understand why, but how do you parents that know so much more than me tell that to your 5 year old? Is the heartache and torment that they deal with worth anything? or is there a price on that too?
As I said in a previous comment on this topic, the $15,000 plus I spent just in the last 3 years of my dogs life were worth every penny. I would spend it again if it meant that I didn't have to see how heart broken members of my family were. I would have continued the $80+/month for the shot that was stabilizing his system, and I would have gone further if it hadn't reached the point where he couldn't breathe on his own, and would have died...more painfully, on his own days later.
Maybe instead of setting a predetermined limit on a pets life, you should figure out what "adjustments" you could make in your life to keep him alive.
Or maybe instead just watch your kids cry when you needlessly kill your pet.
To which Bruce responded:
Mike, both my kids and I cried when I put down the feral dog I'd foolishly tried to rescue. That's part of life, learning to live with loss and understanding that sometimes hard decisions have to be made. I sleep fine, however. I understood that the priority of safety for both my and other peoples' children outweighed the obligation to keep a feral and dangerous dog alive. In fact, I think it is a good thing for children to learn that Mom and Dad do not have the power to solve all problems.
Similarly, I understand and I am perfectly at ease with my choice to value a dog's life lower than the future education for my children and a comfortable retirement for me and my wife. I would sleep just fine, trust me.
The cat comment? Eh, it was a stray, and it hung around long enough that I started feeding it. Luckily, it wasn't as feral as the dog I mentioned. I consider any continued life it has to be out of pure generosity from my family. We don't owe it a thing.
I strongly disagree that setting limits ahead of time is in any way equivalent to "abuse", "cruelty", or "neglect". They get vet visits, they just don't have an infinite budget because they simply are not infinitely important to me or to my family.
Every dollar entering my family's life has a planned destination. The "latte factor" is not a factor in our lives. There are no instant savings of $200 to be made by stopping going to "dunkin' donuts".
I am amazed that you consider $15,000 to be "petty and insignificant". I wish I had that kind of deep pockets. My family makes well above the mean for the country, but we don't have that kind of discretionary income. A $15,000 windfall from cutting "insignificant" expenses in my family would be spent as follows:
Fully fund 2005 Roth IRAs for my wife and me: $4000
Fully fund 2007 Roth IRAs for my wife and me: $8000
Partially fund Oregon 529 for my three children: $1000 each
As you probably can imagine, Mike wasn't having any of that, and responded with the following:
It isn't that the $15,000 is petty or insignificant. That money would have put me at least $15,000 closer to buying my first house. It would have made my life significantly easier than it is right now. My point was just that in my case I don't really regret that I spent all that money on my dog. I just have big issues with having a set budget beforehand for living things. I also took the clueless comment more personally that you may (or may not) have ment. I would be a fool to think that a dog and a human have the same value.
I may have over simplified the "latte factor", my point was that for "most people" as you originally mentioned, some smaller sacrifices could be made to possibly save the pet. I am sure you budget your money magnitudes better than I do, maybe you don't make a lot of frivilous purchases, but like you originally said. Most people don't go to that extent. I have been trying to get my finances in order for a while now. That was next to impossible having things like a pet that I considered an obligation to take care of. Since he had to be put to sleep I havn't gotten a new dog because I don't have the extra money for anything aside for the regular vet visits. That is pretty much what point was. If you can't afford a pet, you (people in general) shouldn't get one
I just can't see past the set budget part. Pets aren't toys. They can very easily end up being a massive expense. My case being a good example. I don't think people should go into owning a pet with the mindset that they aren't going to do much for the animal if a big problem arises. What happens if a problem arises and everyone in your family became really attached to the pet? I am not trying to say you are heartless, but that budget could easily change if something actually happened. I can see the $1500 or whatever budget you chose as being more of an emergency fund. I don't know how far I would have gone financially with my dog if I was married at the time, or had kids, but [comment ends here].
Here are my thoughts:
1. Good discussion, guys. And entertaining.
2. As you can guess, I am more in agreement with Bruce, but that's a personal preference. When I asked people previously how much they would spend to save their pet, the average was in the $1,000 to $2,000 range, so Bruce is in the middle of the pack. I don't have pets (my kids have allergies), but I am in agreement with the principle of setting a limit on what you'd spend to save a pet. It's what I would do if I were an owner.
3. Mike has every right to spend whatever he wants on his pet (did he say $15,000???!!!!). After all, it's his money. I wouldn't, but it's his choice. What I do disagree with is the thought process that equates (either consciously or subconsciously) a pet's life with a human's (Mike says a child is worth more than a pet, but his following comments indicate he really believes otherwise). It's just not even close no matter what anyone says. Not only morally as people do we know that humans are worth far more, but our laws reflect this. (When was the last execution of a criminal for the murder of a dog?) I'm not trying to be crass, but come on, there's a HUGE difference here.
Unfortunately, some people don't live this way. Instead, they value pets as much as or even more than humans. Here's a comment from a third person to my post:
Aside from chickens, I grew up in a pet free home. Maybe that makes me heartless.
Sometimes it seems that my bf's parents love their dogs more than they love him. When he was a young child and he had nightmares, his mother wouldn't let him sleep in her bed at night because he would crowd the dog out of her place on the bed. His mother wants to commission an artist to paint an oil portrait of her current dog, but I've only found one baby picture of him in the entire house. His father, buys steaks for his dog, but couldn't spend a penny on his only son's college education, or on child support for that matter.
So yes -- some people are a lot kinder to their dogs than they are to their children . . . and maybe they even love them more than their children. And yes, those people should go with their heart because they deserve the consequences of their twisted love.
4. I regularly write about the topics of pets and money because these are the issues all would-be and current pet owners need to consider -- the former needs to grapple with the potential costs before getting a pet and the latter needs to consider what to do if/when the "expense versus pet's life" issue arises.
Posted on January 30, 2006 at 09:02 AM in Comments, Pets | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)