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.

Yes. But not expensive pets. I mean you can, but it’s a very foolish decision.

A while back, there was a thread where OP said that people on benefits should have their payments reduced if they have a pet, and have them reinstated once the animal is euthanised.
Some sick people on here that really do believe the guff they come out with.

To be honest OP vets' fees now are the highest I have ever known them to be.
Insurance is not a negligible expense either.

It's not so much the money that would concern me, because people usually manage. It is neglect that I would find a big worry with pet owners. And not taking an active role in raising, training and looking after that pet on a regular basis, every day and long term.

Pets are amazing but they are absolutely more expensive to keep than ever.

I disagree with that but having a pet while on benefits (unless the pet was already there before the claiming) is very foolish.

You say that in jest. But if you are poor and don't have a pet, would you not then be less poor? The money that can be saved by not having a pet is enough to make some difference in the lives of people who can't really afford a pet, but have one anyway.

Jesus wept. That’s appalling.

my dog is a properly trained and accredited assistance dog.

does that mean he’s a pet not?

This post right here sums it up.

I'm not sure people really understand how much it can cost, I was saying to someone the other day who was talking about getting a dog. in 6 months we have had £260 of vets fees and that's on top of 40pm for insurance, 20pm for pet plan, around 70pm on food and treats and he is only a little dog!

True. In Britain where most chocolatey foods contain no real chocolate it is quite funny when people trust their vet to pump their dog’s stomach when it’s eaten a few chocolate hobnobs or some of the famous Roses. Lots of money for vet… stress for dog and moral nitpicking from mumsnet. All for nothing. Thus the world goes round.

There was a post on a local FB site last week with someone asking where they could get a kitten “for free or cheap, with their vaccinations already done.

The comments under the post are interesting. Split between people handing the poster their arse on a plate; and people encouraging them and defending them to a hilt.

Unless they impinge on my boundaries, they can do what they like. If they want me to help/lend money/walk the dog, then a categorical 'No' is the order of the day. Their dogs, their responsibility. Their choice.

While I agree that pets are a privilege I really loathe these faux naive threads about “poor people” and how On earth can they be so stupid / feckless. It’s so sneery. It’s the aspect of mn I hate the most tbh.

@hostleg you realise that “poor people” (I can feel your nose wrinkle from here” are not one homogeneous “great unwashed” and all have different stories, reasons, opinions right?

Worse would be people who get a pet who dont actually have the time to look after it, who dont take dogs for walks etc. That's the bigger problem.

Given there are virtually no restrictions on pet ownership where would you start? Mandatory PTS and deduct from benefits to pay for it if you claim benefits or your income dips below a certain level?

Or mandatory rehoming? Good luck with that when it’s almost impossible to find a place for stray or neglected pets as it is!

I think the ‘supply’ of pets needs to be tackled. People breed their pets to make a few quid and don’t give a fuck where they end up - being tortured to death on social media maybe.

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.

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

😆

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!

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.

This.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.