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?

Just as a thought experiment, try replacing "pets" with "children" in this thread.

Most of the points are equally valid, but vastly more socially unacceptable.

PDSA aren’t taking any new clients at all in our area. I tried to refer a few really critical things with an absolute no as they are at capacity. We don’t have any other charity input so I suppose it depends on location lottery.

Also PDSA treatment is limited compared to private.

Well, no. If you cannot pay your bills or feed or clothe yourself then you absolutely shouldn’t be havn’t a child. If you can’t support yourself then you can’t support a child, so don’t have one.

It should be socially unacceptable to keep popping out kids that you can’t afford.

Yeah exactly this, and I don’t understand why this is socially unacceptable. If you cannot afford to feed, clothe, house etc yourself then of course you shouldn’t have a child knowing that you also cannot afford to feed, clothe, house that child.

Why?

I have 1 child because that's how many we could afford. I could actually afford more now but don't want to start again when DD is just about to start secondary.

There's also a big difference because in the UK at least, there is a support network in place that will supplement a persons income if they have children they can't afford, that means those children will be educated, will receive health care, will if necessary provide housing. None of that exists for pets.

Absolutely I did. I also told her that the charities we are in regular contact with are bursting at the seams, and finding they have a lot less money to try and help a lot more pets, and so are increasingly decreasing/restricting the help they are offering.

But the main thing was she was asking our costs, and I gave them to her.

Luckily she came at a quiet time so I could spend some time with her.

Technically you are right but we had two cats for over a year before DH lost his job. IMO cats are not that expensive to look after, aside from their yearly booster jabs.
We did think of rehoming them but they really needed to stay together and not many people wanted two cats. Besides they were part of the family by then.
If we couldn't afford to feed or clothe the children we wouldn't have had a choice, luckily DH wasn't out of work too long.

Well, whenever I've mentioned it, I've had hell from people.

The problem, I guess, is that I regard that support infrastructure as "You had children when things were good, some disaster happened, so here's a safety net". However, an awful lot of folk I know have treated that safety net as income to be relied upon to help them have kids in the first place, which I (personally) strongly disagree with.

I have had to cut back on my food budget to afford vet bills.
I got my dog in better times (with partner, and he earned very well). He left me... I ended up on UC and with a dog whose insurance just kept going up and up. I had to cancel it in the end as she was costing £110 per month in insurance alone, and that was when she hit 9 years old .She is 14.5 now. We only claimed twice... the last one being when she was 4. We/I paid more in than we ever took out.

A lot of people do not bother with insurance once their dog gets to a certain age. At her age, there would be no extensive tests/heroics anyway. But it is the niggly little issues that add up as they get older.... the sort of stuff that would be less than insurance excess anyway.

This thread is not as bad a previous one which was deleted (and rightfully so), titled 'People on benefits should not have pets', where OP was saying tax payers money should not go on luxuries such as pets.
One person even said benefits should be reduced for every pet you have. Another said benefits should be removed and only reinstated once you prove you have had your pet euthanised.
It was fucking horrible..

Some folk use shocking language!

How can language ‘shock’? It’s just a word.

I am shocked that people think such horrible language is ok.

I'm about to be made redundant and skint however my partner bought our expensive cockapoo after he got compensation for being run over by a car which subsequently he died 2 years later from the brain damage and fits caused by the accident.
I didn't realise at the time he was gonna die or I would be made redundant.

I might be skint but I'm not giving up my dog. He is as attached to me as I am to him..

I don’t think your situation is one anyone would dispute though, you already have the pet and have since fallen on hard times, that’s life and it does happen, nobodies fault. People are criticising those who say in your position right now go out and buy the dog.

I’m shocked that grown adults are shocked by a word. We’re all different.

Are you a bit bored or something?

A bit.