Should we sanction benefits for people who own pets?

According to a bloke in my shop years ago, you used to be able to claim for pet food when you were unemployed.
He reckoned he got £7 a week to feed his dog.

dog needs to be means tested

I don't think people should be planning on having pets...or for that matter, children, if that can't pay for them. That said, there are obviously gonna be people who were in a good financial position when they made that decision and then fell on hard times. You wouldn't want an animal - or child - to suffer in those circumstances. I still don't see why they got rid of the dog license.

So the unemployed (which I have never been) shouldn`t be allowed to own a dog now. ffs.

If they can pay for its wellbeing then of course they should.

A pet is sometimes all some people have

We must live in some evil society if the poor have to have their pets put down just so the rich pay less tax

Vets fees can be crippling.  Very few people think about them when getting a new pet.

To get a dog without having the means to pay for an unexpected and immediate vets bill of a few hundred quid is irresponsible.

That is because of the rip off that is pet insurance

there is the pdsa

I agree with you Jack people should think of this, but it is hard for some

I have got one cat which the maximum I can afford and cope with tbh.

I pay the money out when necessary, but it is far too expensive nowadays.

You are right about pet insurance.  Affordable premiums when animal young and fit, slowly push them up as they get older.  Then make them unrealistic at the time the animal is likely to need treatment.

agree Jack

If you have to go into hospital while on benefits and own a dog, you can claim for the cost of having the dog kennelled while your away.

Its money well spent, now we might think of taxing people who insist
on having children...no more than one and even then you should pay extra tax!

Clungehungry 02 Dec 14 02:07
I don't think people should be planning on having pets...or for that matter, children, if that can't pay for them. That said, there are obviously gonna be people who were in a good financial position when they made that decision and then fell on hard times. You wouldn't want an animal - or child - to suffer in those circumstances. I still don't see why they got rid of the dog license.


I don't think people should be condemned to a lifetime of misery either by not having kids if they can't afford them, it's a natural instinct to great to overcome for the sake off temporarily appeasing moralisers, the ends can justify the means also, many kids from so called benefit backgrounds end up super wealthy and repay society with their taxes. Pets are different, more of a luxury and as ebulgery says, pets are sometimes all people have.

If it's a serious question. No. Not only will many people deny themselves food to feed their animals but there are many studies into the health benefits of owning a pet. Take a few shekels off them in the short term and you may be storing up major mental health problems with massive cost implications for the tax payer in the future.

marvellous Staff sparkie!

A dog or cat can provide comfort and a ' reason to be ' for countless numbers of people., who otherwise would be sad,lonely and clinically depressed. I would suggest for these individuals the cost of keeping a pet would be far less than the costs associated with medical fees and care in the community expense.

Get your own thoughts Facts. No good will come of allowing me to think for you.

So in theory we should be doling out money for vet fees as well, because we wouldn't want to see any dogs suffer due to medical neglect.

Hadn't read your post. But glad that at least on one thing we agree

Not that I'm counting but I think it's two now but it's far better for you to have a visionary as a hero.

It's good to have principles, even though it can make you unpopular on occasions.

Not if you change them regularly.

How on earth is telling people they can't have a pet if they can't afford to look after it, condemning them to a lifetime of misery? If anything it is saving their pet from a lifetime of misery. The safety net provides for many worthy causes - housing, food, fuel...spunking taxpayers money away on an animal when you can't afford to feed yourself should not be one of them.

Ah, I always assumed these pets were what people were referring to when talking about food-banks.

can you get pedigree chum at food banks?

can you get pedigree chum at food banks?

why do you like it?

How on earth is telling people they can't have a pet if they can't afford to look after it, condemning them to a lifetime of misery? If anything it is saving their pet from a lifetime of misery. The safety net provides for many worthy causes - housing, food, fuel...spunking taxpayers money away on an animal when you can't afford to feed yourself should not be one of them.



eh? please re-read my post, I said kids not pets

facts and EO sounding slightly human
i must be p1ssed

How can anyone remove a persons entitlement to benefit based on what that benefit is spent. A laughable if ill conceived idea which will probably be included in the next Tory manifesto.imo

Sorry, scandanavian_haven you are quite right, I misread that. I would still more or less say the same though. Not advocating sterilisation or anything like that, and yes, if people have children they can't afford to support, of course we should step in. But if you know you can't feed, clothe and otherwise look after a child, I don't think you should have one. There are plenty of people who don't have children, and don't lead lives of endless misery. It may be a natural imperative to breed, but it also one to look after your young, if you can't do that, then I don't think you should have them. No doubt some children born to parents on welfare do grow up to be great value to society, but I suspect a good deal more do not. Feeling like a burden, to parent or state, is not nice for a child to grow up with.

That said, a poor parent with bugger all but loves their kid, is a better parent than one who throws money at them but misses their school play. I guess it is more complicated than I/we suggested

Annual jags for one non pedigree cat just cost us £80 !! Vets
are not my favourite people.
Anyone on benefits can take pet  to the P.D.S.A.

Only if you receive housing or council tax benefits.

Only if you have one in your area.

The thing with pets is the vast majority of them WILL cost you money sooner or later - on top of finite and regular items such food, jabs, worming etc.

Many are bought as the result of two of the big problems of modern society.  An attitude of entitlement and a lack of personal responsibility.

clunge, the welfare state is going absolutely nowhere so tbh it really doesn't matter which side people come down on, people will have kids as long as there is system there to pay for them. But why do people shift so much focus, attention and light on the welfare state when we all know that that figure is dwafted by the tax evasion/avoidance cost. also, even fraudulent claims is overrided by the surplus in unclaimed benefits!
The simple reason is that it's easier to attack vulnerable people and harder to put your wealthy friends and backers out of pocket. There is good reason why TV companies commission so many of these repetitve benefit programmes, as soon as one finished another one starts. Instead of going for the easy option why not make as much noise about the TAX DODGERS

Fair point, but I've never known anyone pay more tax than they have to. The fault lies with a system which permits tax avoidance (which I gather has been partially addressed today), and politicians so feckless that even the most honest and generous people want to give them as little of their money as possible.

I’m not against people having pets or kids, but if you’re enter into that whilst on handouts then you’re irresponsible and it’s indicative of a view that other people should be paying your bills.

tax evasion = not paying that which you are legally obliged to do = illegal
tax avoidance = arranging your affairs within the law to pay as little as possible = perfectly legal and common sense
benefits/handouts = dipping your hand in other people’s pockets via the government

personally I view tax levied at individuals above the 30% (in total) point as government theft, and my attitude is f you it’s MY money. And so does vast majority of those who actually pays any real level of tax and that group always going to vote to get their tax bill reduced so they keep more THEIR money.

If you’re on the 40% bracket you’re real tax rate is over 50% when you take into account both sets of NI (because believe me you pay both).  That my friends is highway robbery and those that don’t think that are generally the useless tw&ts that’ll never get anywhere near that rate and are usually net takers out of the economy.

They should have done something long ago re companies not paying uk tax on uk profits!

If more stringent taxing of company profits were the intentions of any political party, they'd have done it when they have the chance and are in power.

So you can forget it.

You've got to applaud the govt for the diversion tactics re benefits.

They've seem to have people focusing on the minority of undeserving and completly missing the fact that they have created a society where just to survive many more people who work full time have to claim benefits. eg tax credits, child tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Facts is correct ,pets can be a godsend for those who have problems which stop them from working .

If you get hungry, eat your pet.

J.S.A benefits should spent on looking for jobs otherwise call it (D)oggy.J.S.A.

Too many people on these doley programs are like.....

HEY, LOOK AT ME Im on the dole and Ive got a DOG......



If they rather starve than see their little Tyson go hungry....

Well, its best to stop all the payments fullstop, before call me a taxi recommends them to eat their dog

Why are those pitbulls so prevalent???????
As long it’s not some fa&&y paris Hilton style handbag dog then I’d have any really because they can be just as good company even if it’s an heinz57 mongrel.

heinz 57 is the best dog one can get.

Instead of paying a grand on some fancy pedigree breed, nip down to the dog refuge and give a home to some poor mutt that has been badly treated.

exactly

They spend some of their cash on their pets rather than on cigs and booze like others.

I was in a pub in Elgin and a chav was giving his Alsatian beer to drink from an unused ash tray. The dog was p*ssed and getting quite aggressive.

I was in a pub in Elgin and a chav was giving his Alsatian beer to drink from an unused ash tray. The dog was p*ssed and getting quite aggressive.

Were they celebrating celtics victory over hearts?

No mate, drowning their sorrows at the defeat by the WASPS

themightymac    05 Dec 14 00:10 
Instead of paying a grand on some fancy pedigree breed, nip down to the dog refuge and give a home to some poor mutt that has been badly treated.

I don't know about where you live, but in east London, a malnourished poodle wont protect your drug stash like a trained pit bull.