Why do families who are poor, have pets

What is poor ? What does poor mean? How do poor people live? What do poor people's life look like according to others.

It's not usually the owners who "do without" it's the animals who suffer
Gobsmacked that people think owning a pet is cheap
Food, vaccines , flea/ wormer and insurance costs a lot
Sadly it's often unwise decisions and in many cases MH issues or a history of trauma/ chaotic lives which lead to poverty and animal hoarding

All this "awwww poor people deserve pets" is bullshit
It's completely irresponsible to have pets you can't afford

Oh gosh absolutely OP it makes me clutch my pearls in horror when those grubby poor people dare to have anything other than the most basic things needed for existence. The poor should not be seen or heard and definitely don't deserve the love and companionship of a pet, they should just stay in their grubby hovels apart from when they are working minimum wage to make my life better, and oh dont even get me started on those on 'shudder' benefits.......

My dog costs over £120 a month in food, grooming, insurance, pet plan. I am fortunate that I can afford it. When I was struggling to make ends meet, I couldn’t afford a pet so didn’t have one.

I love my dog and can see the benefit to the whole family. Exercise, responsibility for the kids, companionship etc etc but if folks can’t afford that then they shouldn’t have one.

What charity was that?

I agree with you OP. Having a pet is just another thing in a long line of things that can make a happy life along with having a child, eating well, affording gym membership, etc. If you cannot afford if, you cannot afford it. It sucks, but that is the world we live in. If the argument is that everyone should be able to have a pet no matter their income, I would argue that be the case for some of the other things in my list.

Well I would object to every benefit claimant spending their money on crack cocaine as it increases violence and crime in society.

I thought people on benefits were so hard up that sitting around musing how they should spend their spare cash, like a dog or drugs are the only option, wouldn’t be possible.

No not dictate but they have a right to be pissed off if they have gone without luxuries themselves.

Well yes and even ‘accidental’ pregnancies are really just careless pregnancies 95% of the time.

No, but neither are anything to do with anyone other than the person spending the money on them either.

I know the comments in here about poor people having to live on gruel and live in workhouses are satire, but some people do, in a round about way, agree that people on the breadline should have no joy in life as joy is a luxury, and the taxpayer should not be funding that.

There’s poverty and poverty. Only in UK poverty is the absence of a dog seen as a hardship. In sub Saharan Africa they would laugh at that probably.

How can people even use the argument about them having kids? People accidentally get pregnant. You don’t accidentally get a massive dog. It’s a choice.

Same reason we go on a yearly holiday despite not really being able to afford it (a week in a caravan park in the UK during the school holidays can easily cost more than the £900 of vets bills in your example OP). People on minimum wage deserve a holiday, just as they deserve to experience the love and health benefits a pet brings. Few people on low wages like me that I’ve met have multiple pets (or indeed multiple holidays). I don’t think a pet or similar things like a holiday should be seen as extravagant, despite not technically being essentials to life.

Literally.

There are other lives involved here, whether it’s a pet or a child. It really shouldn’t be controversial to say that if you know you cannot afford to do the provides the absolute basics for another life then you shouldn’t be taking it on- it’s not fair on the pet or child.

It’s not a binary choice of a dog or crack cocaine though is it?

I know! The entitlement and ‘if I can’t have anything I want then obviously it’s because I’m oppressed’ is madness.

No, the tax payer does not get to dictate how benefits are spent. Once it is in someone's bank account, they can spend it how they wish, be that wisely or otherwise.
My pet brings me joy, purpose and company. That is spending money wisely if you ask me. Of course, I could just spend it on drugs instead.

My husband worked for a homeless charity for years. The charity said that people at the very bottom of the pile have pets because they want to feel better than ( superior to)something and , since they are at the very bottom of the humanity pyramid, then a dog is what they get. It's a bonus if people give you money because of the dog . It's also a bonus if the dog loves you .

How on earth is this controversial?! Of course you shouldn’t have a child if you can’t afford to FEED them Jesus why is that a crazy thing to say

That may be the case but the OP in that situation was concerned that it wasn’t enough to feed them all plus an animal. If that’s the case then you can’t afford a pet.

If it's their money that they are earning absolutely. But if the taxpayer is funding the pets (or other luxuries) it's no wonder they might question it.

Maybe poor people should share bread with the ducks.

Just euthanise the poor people.

They are just awesome. I love my pigs, they want for nothing. I'm not rich but I spend a lot of time making sure they are cared for

Why do the poor have anything beyond basic bread and water ?

Are there no workhouses ?