Why do families who are poor, have pets

I can't afford to have pets at the moment, I want guinea pigs but in order to adequately house them (and not buy a shitty cage from pets at home) feed them and look after them (including finding an exotics vet, yup, guinea pigs are still classed as an exotic pet despite there being evidence of them being kept as pets for centuries in the UK) I'm going to wait.

It can be frustrating. I know a family who now have 4 dogs, 2 cats and a hamster. They only had 2 dogs before their financial situation got really bad and I do think they’re irresponsible for getting more animals after. They are thinking of getting a snake. 🙄

They are very loving to their animals in some ways, but they don’t have any pet insurance now and they have left things untreated because they can’t afford it. Sometimes they don’t have dog food so the dogs get fed human food which isn’t ideal. They should have stuck with the 2 dogs they had. They are nice people, if they have the money then they do spend it on their pets, but they simply don’t have enough money to have the amount of pets that they do.

Oh here we go, people on low incomes should basically just work and exist and that's it.

I think if I wanted to start a business right now I’d start a pet insurance business. It seems like a licence to print money.

Yes, people were agreeing with them too. Saying why should tax payers be paying for other people's pets. It was deleted but vile. Upset me as I am on benefits and have a pet.
And yes, I see it on MN a lot where people say that poor people should not have children etc.

I think the OP was thinking more of people who wouldn't be able to find that £80, who might not have any small luxuries they could give up and who haven't even considered what they would do in the event of something serious arising.

I wasn't really expecting people to answer those questions. I was pointing out that speculating over how the poor spend their money is pretty ridiculous and unpleasant.

Euthanasia due to lack of funds is increasing hugely in the veterinary industry. Not what the staff went into the profession for. Putting young animals to sleep because people 'wanted' a cute or puppy or kitten and had no thought as to how they would afford even the most basic healthcare.
Animals are a privilege and rightly it is the law in the UK that you must seek medical care if your pet is sick. Unfortunately it is not enforced and so we have millions of pets going without healthcare and suffering because of selfish people and their wants.

YANBU at all.

This!
Poor people are already missing out on a lot. Pets give so much to peoples lives. Even homeless people have dogs, who always look well fed and cared for, because people cut down on other things so they can have this loving company in their life. Mental health would be even worse without them.

Because the poor want to live a fulfilling life just like anyone else.

It is a selfish assumption by the middle class have-it-alls that the poor should not have:

Children
Pets
TVs
Drink
Smoke
Any other luxury

This is greed personified. Only humans with money should live whole, satisfying lives? No mention of the system being stacked against them. E.g. poor quality of education, housing, lack of employment options. The total inability to fight their way out of poverty due to a totally unequal society.

Why do poor people have children? Why do poor people have televisions? Why do poor people have microwaves? Why do poor people have mobile phones? Why do poor people have games consoles?

All these poor people should just accept their status as less than and get on with living their lives hand to mouth with no expectation of ever deriving any joy from it. Their purpose is to prop up the rich and do all the jobs no one really wants to do for fuck all money and no hope of improving their lot.

Why do rich countries have poor people?

So kill a pet because the owner is on benefits. Thats awful.

I guess there were people agreeing to that or that pets should be removed.

There will be one saying poor people should not be allowed children next.

I’m not well off financially and I have 3 dogs of various size. One is a rescue that was so badly treated she will never be fully toilet trained and has serious behavioural issues. I feed all 3 of them dry complete food with tinned meat in gravy. Costs about £14 a week to feed 65kilos of dogs. I will get them vet treatment for minor things like an sudden unexpected limp, signs of infection etc, and pay on a credit card and just pay it off but if it was anything serious/expensive/ongoing, the dog would be euthanised ( as much as I love them). 5 years ago we were quoted £4500 to get our 9 month old Rotty fixed after she tore her cruciate ligament. That was with a specialist. I rung around and found a very experienced older independent vet who offered to do it for me and it was £825. Paid it in the credit card and took 18 months to pay off but she’s been fine since. I refuse to get insurance as it’s a complete and utter scam and over the years I would have spent £38,000 minimum in pet insurance but my total vets costs EVER are less than £12k and I used to breed Chinese crested dogs, guineas pigs and reptiles.

I think if I was flat out broke and wanted a pet I’d go for a hamster as they rarely have to go to the vet. We had hamsters my whole childhood and just died of old age, never went to the vet.

and it’s not true if you have insurance then having a pet needn’t be expensive. We had a sibling pair of cats. We had a £400 vet bill for an infected bite on the boy’s tail and insurance paid out about £140 - £200 premium and then it turned out they put a cap on emergency vet visits (cat was v poorly on the weekend so we had an emergency consultant fee). Just yesterday his sister has been in due to vomiting a lot - £110 for consultation and some medicines. Not even worth claiming that on insurance due to the £200 premium.

It's obvious that we're going to be inundated with posters who were living mortgage-free in Kensington town houses when they got their pet but who are now, through unforeseeable circumstances outside of their control, living in a hole in the ground. That is clearly unfortunate but it is also very different to the more normal case (and the one I suspect the OP was getting at), of people getting pets that are obviously going to cost real money when they don't have a great deal spare to begin with. In that case the argument of 'Oh but they're just so nice and cuddly wuddly' is puerile irresponsible nonsense. If poor people want to waste money on smoking or big TVs or any of the other examples that have been given so far of things they can ill afford then that's up to them, but if they get a pet they can ill afford then the pet may well suffer too.

Because not having enough money is stressful and being permanently stressed will impact your ability to defer gratification and make it more likely that you will not make good long-term decisions.
I think it would be better if there were some restrictions on pet ownership but it's difficult to see how this could be brought about.

Because you don't have to feed a tattoo... its a one off purchase.

Sometimes I think people buy pets and have babies with less thought than goes into a tattoo.

Because it helps my mental health to have a Cat. I love him. I do pay for pet insurance though. So if something serious came up, I'd be covered and only have to pay £80. I'll give up other small luxuries before I give up my Cat.

People don't actually think about it and maybe many don't have experience.

I would love a dog but financially and practically I know it won't work at this stage of my life. We have a good income but i'm not sure I will ever be ready for the financial
burden.

This.

We brought our beloved pets into our home way before our finances and personal circumstances changed and we became less well off. We still do all we can to ensure they're well cared for at all times, even when it means we need to make the odd sacrifice. What they bring to our lives in terms of love and happiness outweighs any "doing without" for us.
On the flip side, there are some very wealthy people who treat their pets dreadfully, and shouldn't be allowed to keep them. It's not always the less well off who neglect their pets.

People don’t think it through, same with having big families. I choose now not to have pets, my dog was costing £150 a month for insurance when he died!

If you have good insurance, it’s not actually that expensive to own a pet

😆

I'm answering the OP's question about why people who can't afford pets get them. If that doesn't include you, then you're not included in my reply. I'm hardly tarring millionaires who can fund menageries with the same brush as people who can't afford their vet bills, but didn't think I had to delineate sub-categories specifically for them or you as it's clear what the topic is under discussion.