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.

Because I didn't expect my child to suddenly become disabled and to have to give up my job when he was in hospital.

Sometimes life happens.

Oh Jog on
Perhaps its the only company they have !

Haha when I posted advice on debt repayment I was told I should sell my TV because watching TV is a privilege.

It's a question of degree isn't it? Pets are hugely life-enhancing and provide many benefits for mental health and wellbeing. I don't think pet-owning should be the preserve of the affluent only. Provided you have pet insurance and can afford the pet food each week it shouldn't be prohibitive.

I think also think some people are absurdly precious about pet welfare. Some of the animal rescue places put prospective adopters through absurd hoops to prove they are worthy of owning an animal.

But I have to say getting something like a large dog when you're on benefits or homeless is just daft. Anyone who is living in a state of being one paycheque away from financial crisis shouldn't be making living creatures dependent on them for their welfare.

Because poor people are allowed to have nice things….

Are pets things?

Why do wools who are poor have children?

Because a lot of people aren't great at sorting their priorities out.

It's probably also got a lot to do with the fact that peoples circumstances can and do change over time.

If you are living on the breadline and get a pet you might be able to manage the initial cost but it doesn't take much in your life to go wrong or for the pet to get ill to push the pet into unaffordable territory. The same probably goes for anything, including houses and cars.

TBH I find the whole let's get a dog and pay someone to walk it a lot weirder. Surely the whole point of owning a dog is that you walk it.

Why don’t poor people just become lemmings and please everyone else?

Owning a pet isn’t a ‘need’, it’s a ‘want’. If you can’t afford the animal’s needs (food, medical care, shelter), you shouldn’t own a pet. I would add that some people can provide food, medical costs and shelter but don’t have ‘time’ to spend with their pet. In the same way, therefore, time-poor people should not own a pet. What we (humans) ‘want’ shouldn’t come into the mix.

Good insurance is expensive in itself.

But on the "time-poor" point: that's very situation specific isn't it?

If you have a Great Dane or an Alsatian then you will need to walk it a lot and it's probably not an appropriate pet if you have a family where both partners work full time out of home.

But there's no reason you have to have someone at home around the clock if you have a cat or a rodent.

I've previously been turned down by animal shelters when trying to adopt a cat on the basis that they wouldn't rehome a cat to someone who worked out of home at all (I work in an office two days a week). A mature cat is perfectly capable of fending for itself in a house for a few hours a couple of times a week. It's ridiculous to claim that you need to be in the house 24/7 to have any kind of pet.

There is a higher chance of being poor if you are also stupid.

Having kids is a want also, are we saying poor people shouldn’t have children because they can’t afford to feed and care for them or don’t have time.

It’s the dreaded racket of pet insurance that has made pet ownership so expensive.
I’m nearly 60, and although we were poor when I was a child (single mum) we always had a cat and most people had pets on our council estate. Both my grannies, on their state pensions, had much loved and well looked after dogs. Pet ownership was common for people of all financial backgrounds. But back then vets were small businesses and “pay as you go”. A trip to the vet was not financially crippling.

Now everyone is expected to have insurance, and the vets charge through the nose because the insurers pay. And insurers charge hugely to cover this. I didn’t bother with insurance and a vet visit and some basic medication cost me £130 recently. DDog is at the end of his life but has been healthy for most of it so I think we’ve been better off by not having insurance.

I do sometimes wounder if poor/low income are misunderstood. Do the people who earn better actually understand. Like cutting your cloth accordingly if someone has never had to do that or only a very small trim do they actually get it?

It could be something like a car for example.
Poor person . Lessons from friend/family member. Car older type . Engine 1.0 insurance 3rd party.

Non poor person : decent car. Bigger engine fully comp.

Poor/low income: grocery shopping all unbranded items.

Non poor person grocery shopping more likely to be branded items or a mix.

Poor person: clothing may use cheaper tyoe shops possibly buy second hand.

Non Poor person: more likely branded name clothes more expensive tyoe shops buys everything new.

Few examples means people can still have what they would like but on a different way and frees up money for other things .

Please note this is an example.

Because they want.

Do you think poor people shouldn't have DC too OP?

Some people like a fun filled slightly chaotic house and money isn’t that important to them.
Pets add to the fun and love.

MIL was like that, 4 kids and living practically hand to mouth every week but they always had cats, budgies, fish, hamsters and later when they had a bit more money they had a horse for a while! I don’t understand it myself.
I would love 1 cat though.

You could say the same about children too really, they are also very expensive.

Some pets live a long time, people’s circumstances can change. I think you’ll find genuine animal lovers will go without themselves to ensure their pets have everything they need.

should pet ownership be means tested? Or more sensibly, should people have to undertake some kind of responsibility test before being allowed to acquire an animal?

I recently watched a TV show where a dog was being reincarnated into another dog. He had a choice of owners. One set were rich and successful (and would supply premium food and toys!) but he chose a homeless man. It transpired that was because the homeless man would be with him every second of the day, loving him and caring for him. Whereas the rich couple would be out at work or off socialising etc and he'd be alone.

"Poor people" have just as much love to give as rich ones. And yes, if they're home all day with the pet, the pet is going to be a lot happier. It doesn't just benefit the owner, it benefits the pet too.

Any one of us can end up poor! Some relatively well off famous people have gone bankrupt. It's not a fixed state. As others have said, having a pet is one of the best things for MH.

I have a friend (I say that loosely) who is always pleading poverty
Can't even afford a pint of milk
She has a medium breed dog and then someone offered her a kitten (both male)
She couldn't take in the kitten fast enough
Neither animal has ever seen a vet and are both unchipped and intact
In her case its because she wanted them without a thought to their wellbeing (which is the reason I'd love a dog but can't afford one)
As soon as one dies,I will guarantee she'll get another and the cycle will repeat-the dog has worms but she refuses to get him medication as 'I can't afford it'
So why get one knowing you cant afford it?

My ds got a rescue dog and before he took the dog on,he did his maths and could afford it and the agreement is,that if something happens to him,we will take the dog on-hes put money away for his upkeep (if he loses his job,he's in an area where he will get another easily)
However things in life can turn on a sixpence and we are the backup to this
I know nothing is guaranteed but at least it wasn't 'I'd love a dog' on the Monday and bought one on the Tuesday because he fancied it without thinking longer term

Errrrm .... yes?
Because feeding your child is pretty fundamental, so if you cant even do that...🙄

If you cant afford to feed or care for a child and dont have time to care for a child then no you shouldn't have a child.

I do think shelters are too harsh with their requirements and most animals would prefer a life away from the shelter, even if it isn’t perfect. But if you know you work a ten-hour-day, with commuting time, I think you need to think very carefully about whether you are making yourself happy at the expense of the animal. As you said, many (not all) cats might manage okay but most dogs wouldn’t. Perhaps you then choose a hamster or stick insect! I just feel there is too much emphasis on pets being good for humans’ physical and mental health and not enough on the animal.

I meant to add to my post that the most neglectful pet owners I encountered were very well off.

Whikst you do have to be able to feed your pet and pay vet bills, having money, in itself, does not a good pet owner make.