Why do families who are poor, have pets

I think the next generation are actually more switched on when it comes to animal welfare and responsibility when it comes to pet ownership so I'm not too concerned about the future.

Yes, my neighbour is one. Got a spaniel (so high energy dog) during Covid. She works as a nurse so left him alone loads. She would get home, and I would hear "you fucking disgusting animal" etc stuff like that because she left him and he obviously needed to toilet when she was out.
And he used to do the most sad howls too.

What's this got to do with "poor" people?
Iv seen well off families getting pets for their children for xmas or birthdays only to moan about the mess, the whining, the "im sick of walking this dog" or "having to clean up mess" "little jonny said they would do it but now they leave it to me and I haven't time...do you want a dog?"

But your circumstances changed. I think the concern is when people spend money on pets etc with money they haven’t got.

What if they already have the children though?
I'm one of four and we were fine until my little sister took very unwell and my mum had to leave work to care for her. She couldn't really give one of us back, ya know?
My point was things change sometimes and people who were fine financially can have things wholly out of their control take that away.

I got my kitten after getting out of a psychiatric unit. I was very alone and not feeling good and I bought my kitten. I'm so glad I did. He is my constant companion. I get disability payments but I don't see myself as particularly poor. I think my income is at the level of working full time minimum wage job. I pay £15 per month for insurance and I have a small inexpensive vet for my cat, it isn't much, and his food doesn't cost too much

I have one pet, my only company & very much the reason I'm getting out of bed. I cover his costs above my own, even if that means I go without because he brings me such joy, I cannot express what a difference having him makes.

My life is void of most things others do, drinking, trips out, holidays, my life wouldn't matter without him.

Companionship, exercise, mood enhancers

I don’t think people have any issue whereby the pet proceeds a change in circumstances. The issue, as I see it, is don’t buy an expensive pet (or large tv, expensive holiday, and yes, have more children) if you’re struggling with money. This applies to everyone, not just ‘the poor’ .

Yes that is a very common discussion on here as to why parents who struggle to afford the kids they have go on to have another.

No they don't. I have a pet, but not the other two things.
Put the Daily Mail down.

Pets, massive wide-screen tellys, and tattoos. They come in threes.

None of my pets have ever checked my purse. Over the years they taught my chi,dren and grandchildren to treat vulnerable creatures with care, to look after their needs, to love a pet when words aren't enough for comfort, if you're hurting. Overall, we're all better human beings for sharing our lives with animals. Its a basic instinct to care for something vulnerable other than yourself. Sorry you've missed out OP.

Why do well off people think that poorer people should have to forego everything nice and enjoyable just to survive in the way that middle class people deem to be appropriate?

The issue of poor people having pets and people buying pets in lockdown or for Xmas (ie without thinking it through) are separate ones. Poor doesn't mean stupid and well-off doesn't mean good at making decisions.

Most poor people don't have pets because they live in flats, rented or unstable accommodation and/or have done the maths. The few that do obviously deem it to be important for their family/their welfare to make the financial sacrifice.

I'm not particularly poor but I do have a UC top up on my civil servant salary so you probably think I am out of order for taking on two rescue cats (fully insured, chipped and spayed) that my children and I get a lot of enjoyment from don't you?

I grew up poor and we always had much loved family cats, they were an important part of our childhood and taught us a lot about how to care and respect for pets and a comfort when times were hard.
The cats we had were generally very healthy and lived long happy lives.
I think being able to have a pet is important and actually time love, care and attention count for a lot, it's not all about money.
Vet treatment has advanced enormously and costs are massive, I recently spent £250 on medication and vet consultation for our guinea pig who had an ulcer, there's no way my parents would have done the equivalent

yes, but also if they are rich.... too many people on the earth

Why just pensioners? Younger people can experience loneliness too, and benefit from having a pet.

As it happens, I agree with (despite feeling pets are a good idea) - with this exception: that pensioners living alone often have an animal which is their sole companion. I don't mind donating so their pet can be cared for.

Lots of people start out ok and then something happens to change their financial situation.
Your question is actually gross. Do you look at a family with four plus kids who are poor and ask them why they had so many kids?

Then those people are assholes, but I can't imagine it will have been an easy decision. Having a pet PTS is heart breaking.

How many people do not spend huge amounts on treatment for small pets? Pets that don't live long anyway... are they awful people for getting more after? If your child's 2 year old hamster starts growing a huge mass, will you spend hundreds on it?

Being PTS is not the worse thing that can happen to an animal.

I can afford to care for my dog. I could not afford a massive vet bill, but she is on borrowed time anyway as she is very elderly.

And if it does happen? The animal is euthanised, but oh well, you can always get another?
It is utterly selfish and nonsensical to think” I want a dog/cat/an other animal. I cannot afford to care for it, but I want one so I’ll get one”.

No one is forced to donate or volunteer. The existence of these charities is a good thing. They are taking nothing away from anyone else.

Also, not all pets end up needing vet treatment. My parent's old dog saw the vet once, and that was when he was PTS. Some dogs just drift through life with no health problems, or a few minor ones that are cheap and simple to sort.

Yes, people who can not afford to feed their pet... that is a problem, but is different to someone not having £k in in savings just in case, because the 'just in case' might not happen.

I'm with you. My idea of helping the less fortunate doesn't extend to thinking Chardonnay needs to have a state funded Guinea pig.

Don’t be ridiculous. Of course I agree with helping those less fortunate than myself. I do it through my taxes and also independently of that via donating time and money.
I do not agree that people who cannot afford to provide care to animals should choose to have them. And yes, I totally understand that circumstances change which is when the PDSA or Blue Cross are brilliant. I simply don’t feel I or anybody else is “entitled” to own an animal. I wanted a dog for YEARS but didn’t get one because I couldn’t afford it. I did not get one with the expectation that someone else would pay for it if it became unwell, or that I could just dump it, which is unfortunately what a lot of rescues are experiencing now.

You don't agree with helping those less fortunate than yourself? You don't agree e.g. with providing policing, healthcare, armed forces, welfare etc for all through taxation? That is the logical position to take if you do not agree that some people need others to help them or to provide services which, alone, they cannot pay for!