Why do families who are poor, have pets

[hostleg]

They are expensive to feed, look after and to recover from illness and injuries.

Hear people who have a dog who swallowed something they shouldn’t have - £900 at vets. I’m sure these poor families don’t have £900.

I saw a woman Facebook saying she wanted to adopt a kitten by couldn’t afford the £100 adoption fee. She wanted the fee waived for people on low incomes. When you take consideration vet fees it’s actually not a bad deal. If you can’t even afford £100 then you shouldn’t be getting a pet.

If Bob can budget his benefits and still afford pets, then he is doing nothing wrong.
I know some people on MN would love this, but if you have a bit of spare benefit when your bills are paid... you are allowed to spend it how you want. You don't have to give it back.

Personally, I think that the blame lies with our culture that everyone seems to think a family should have a dog or cat. It's not just an aspiration, it's an expectation. Pets have just become another thing that we aquire, like cars and mobile phones, and people think they should have one without considering the needs of the animals.

But that wasn’t the point of the original post which was whether people who can’t afford pets should have them. Bob can clearly afford his pets in your scenario so that’s a non issue.

Bring back pet licences and install proper accountability. So called 'lesser' animals should not be treated as gratification for people. idiot neighbours apparently love dogs, have 2 and they appear to be mostly in the house, barking when the owners return..... what is the point? Why do I have to listen to it?

I completely agree that you should consider if you can afford a pet before getting one. Even if you have insurance you have to pay the bills first a lot of the time before you claim it back.

We aren’t well off at all but comfortable and both our cats needed became very poorly at the same time (the worst luck and two completely different events). We ended up with £2700 on our credit card. Only one paid out so we had to pay £1200. If we weren’t financially ok then both our cats would have been put to sleep.

And someone who took their pet to the vets and paid £900 for treatment did too.

I don't think you can compare a pet to a car or phone. A phone especially is a necessity these days. You can't get buy without one. I get having a pet is a unnecessary expense if your poor but you def need a phone and a car is needed in many locations too. Before long people will be saying the poor should live on plain bread and pasta.

I would also like to know this, because I'm surprised that a charity whose purpose is to support homeless people would make such an inflammatory and derogatory statement.

Of the (many) people I've come into contact with through my work who sleep rough or are insecurely housed and had a dog, I don't believe that a single one had a dog so they could feel "superior" to it. Most of them had a dog because it made them feel safer, even if the dog was a big softy they felt on balance they'd be less likely to be robbed/attacked/raped. Also surely you don't need to work for a homelessness charity to understand how incredibly lonely and isolating living on the streets can be? It's hardly surprising that someone in that situation might want the companionship of a dog.

The PDSA offer free vet care for those on benefits. So the animals would be treated for free.

The poor don't need a smartphone, a TV, anything bigger than a bedsit, any sort of holiday or paid hobby. They should just work in their lowly jobs and quietly get on with it, how dare they have wants.

Poor people make bad financial decisions all the time. It is one of the reasons they can't escape poverty.

Depends if there is one in your area. I am not in the catchment area for one.

Absolutely

Because, quite rightly we don’t police people’s spending. There are people out there earn massive salaries but overspend, living on overdrafts or credit cards every month, maybe they shouldn’t have a pet either.

I'm old and partially disabled. I live alone in a remote rural area. I have a an old horse and a young cat. The works pension pays for the horse and some of the my old age pension pays for the cat. They are my boon companions and they give me a reason to carry on living. The horse has aged out of his insurance and if he becomes chronically ill, I will have him pts.
The cat is my constant friend and companion. He's insured and has a veterinary payment plan for vaccinations, health checks and any treatments that he requires. If I die, he will be cared for by the Cat's Protection Society and found a suitable home.

I don't think they're the same thing either, I'm saying that many people put a family pet in that same bracket of "things they should have". Try telling the average dog owner that their pet isn't essential.

You could argue that poor people do a life with a lot less and waste very little. Even homeless people take great care of their dogs.

What do you suggest? Everyone on benefits should submit their outgoings for your approval?

I’m disabled. My dog is my trained service dog.

is he a pet or not?

https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/how-we-help/ownership/hope-project

This has some.good info

You can say the same about having children.. why have them if you know you won’t be able to support them? Obviously if one’s financial situ changes that’s different.

I know a family with five DC, and no working adults (all on benefits) who have six pets, and recently left their cat to die at home because they didn’t want the vet bill.

Pets are a luxury and they deserve a good life, and medical treatment. If you can’t offer that, don’t get a pet, because they deserve better.

That is horrible. But people who do have money can and do do the same too.
Having money does not mean you will take proper care of a pet.

People's circumstances change. You can't go through life thinking oh I'd better not get a cat/dog/rabbit because 5 years down the line,I might be made redundant/develop an illness that leaves me unable to work.