To think that poor people shouldn't be able to afford pets?

[tellmesomethingtrue]

Why do people who claim to be poor or say moneys tight, then buy pets? I genuinely can't understand this logic.
AIBU to think that if you can't afford a basic house DIY or to buy your kids uniform, then you therefore can't afford pets?

I work in a vets. I get a huge discount on costs and payments can be made monthly if needed.

Probably big screen tvs too?

I'd say it has no effect on you how other spend their money. If someone is broke after a getting a pet, then that is their decision.
Keep your nose out.

In which case they are harming only themselves. Not an innocent animal.

I’m a single disabled parent to an autistic child. I’m ‘poor’ if what you determine someone who lives in a council home and relies on benefits with no disposable income or luxuries. I have recently got a kitten. Are you saying I shouldn’t have been able to expand my family in that way because I’m what you determine to be ‘poor’. My autistic son has benefited incredibly by having a pet and she is helping with my loneliness and mental health whhen my son his at his dads. Crazy that you’re putting a box over people, you’re obviously very entitled

Right? Shall we say really cheap smartphones are okay though as people do need to order their takeaways somehow?

Because in some cases they won't be paying for them. There are benefits available for people who want to get a dog if it's to help with their "mental health"

To be fair, if you’re on the bread line, a pet can be a valuable source of protein.

Then there’s the pdsa

Poor people shouldn’t have children either. They shouldn’t have children or pets or Christmas or any love or any kindness nothing , nothing!!!!!

But in the specific examples where a family has no money for food or to buy uniform for their child, yes of course it’s sensible to say you shouldn’t be buying another mouth to feed. It’s not really about what anyone’s personal idea of “poor” is, it’s common sense to say that if you cannot afford to feed and clothe your child then you shouldn’t be buying another mouth to feed and another thing to take care of. If you can do those things and have a pet, amazing, do it, and this doesn’t apply to you. But it’s baffling that anybody would argue that it’s the right thing to do to purchase a pet which also needs feeding, insurance, treatments etc IF they already cannot afford to feed, clothe etc the family they have.

1. PDSA isn’t always free, there is still a charge
2. It is very widely known that the PDSA does not provide the same level of treatment as another vet. Not down to any real fault of their own but they are a charity and so cost is the most important deciding factor, meaning more pets not receiving the treatment they need.

Ah but sometimes it is free. Look on the bright side.

Sometimes for a person on a low income a pet is the only thing that brings them any joy or purpose in life because they have various health difficulties etc. However, yet again I’m unsurprised to see that people don’t consider such scenarios in their ignorance.

There's a couple of different issues here.

1. A lot of people who are poor have not always been poor and will not always be poor, and so may well have a pet from a previous period when they were doing okay, they will not expect to be permanently poor, and so will not want to get rid of the pet.
2. A lot of people who are poor are in work, and they are poor because living costs are too high and wages are too low. People who work should be able to afford to live a dignified life, including having enough discretionary spending to afford a pet, if that's what they choose.
3. A lot of people who are poor are not able to work because of long-term illness or disability, and as a wealthy country Britain should be able to afford to provide these people with a life of dignity, including having enough discretionary spending for some luxuries, including a pet, if that's what they choose.

I really dislike the attitude that the poor should be made to suffer and to do without any and all joy.

But @Mrsttcno1 you don’t know anything about @thecherryfox circumstances apart from what she’s posted and she is making the argument- she saying she’s poor and she’s saying she got a kitten and it’s brought so much joy to her autistic child and helped her with her mental health is that argument baffling to you, it’s a pretty good reason to have a pet no?

We are both on much better salaries now but our cat, food, insurance etc is expensive. It's a dent in our finances without a doubt and we can afford her.

I kind of agree. I had a friend that lived in a three bedroom house with five small children, two German shepherds and a Labrador
There was not room to swing a cat, the entire house stunk to high heaven of dog. The kids clothes were covered in dog hair.
If push had come to shove, she would’ve had to have fed those dogs before she fed the children on the basis that they’d probably have eaten the children if they were hungry enough

Most folk have autism or are suspected to have autism, even if they’re not diagnosed. Neurotypicals are suspected to be in the minority. Declaring your child has autism isn’t a big surprise announcement anymore

Eh?!

Mumsnet is nuts.

There are no extra state benefits if you have or need pets. Some charities offer grants.

The RSPCA will actively work with poorer families to allow them to keep and care for their pets. If they are unable to do this, they will help with rehoming.

Quite a lot of you are making stuff up in your heads to justify your disapproval of the poor. Try not to spread the disinformation around.

Every family has someone with autism. It’s more prevalent than people think

Absolute rubbish. Autistic folk make up approximately 1.7-2% of the population, extrapolated from the 0.82% who've been diagnosed. However, when there's a family with one diagnosed autistic person, odds are there are at least two or three more in that family who are autistic but not diagnosed, and that leads to a real distortion of perception.

The problem here is one of perception, not reality.

As for the OP...reality is that most middle-income folk can't afford pets either. Sure, it's easy when they're young, but as they start to get a bit older...for example, our Akita has cost us around £10k in surgeries this year, having blasted past the £7k insurance claim limit for the year very early on.

One of our previous dogs (a Chihuahua) had a similar bill, and another (Husky/collie cross) cost us around £15k over the last three years of his life in various treatments and medication to maintain his quality of life (yes, we made sure he was happy over that time, and we let him go as soon as the balance swung the wrong way).

Almost nobody thinks about that when they're drooling over the cute little puppy, and even if you're earning (say) 20% more than the average...that's still one hell of a bill to get stuck with, and one that most people couldn't afford under any circumstances.