4 ms·

I love my pet and would do anything for them. At times my pet has kept me alive. If I’m poor does this mean I shouldn’t be able to get help from a pet because

I love my pet and would do anything for them. At times my pet has kept me alive. If I’m poor does this mean I shouldn’t be able to get help from a pet because people want it to be taxed? I’m getting pretty tired of all these empty and worthless sensationalist articles.

the8472 7y ago
Pets have real costs associated with them (as this article highlights) and to my knowledge they're not considered basic needs by any stretch. So why should you be exempt from paying those costs, externalties included?
- bjt2n3904 7y ago
  Because it's quite enough to pay real costs... And now you want to add imaginary ones? No thank you.
- xfitm3 7y ago
  Where do you want to live? Soviet Russia? Pets provide companionship to millions of people - I'd bet you many of them consider that to be a basic need.
  - the8472 7y ago
    Basic needs as defined by most western governments, e.g. for the purpose of calculating welfare, does not cover expenses for pets. They do not enjoy tax benefits like dependents do either. Of course people who enjoy something are more likely to define whatever they enjoy as basic need, that doesn't mean we let everyone use the definition that suits them.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  <kids> have real costs associated with them (as this article highlights) and to my knowledge they're not considered basic needs by any stretch. So why should you be exempt from paying those costs, externalties included?
  - the8472 7y ago
    I'll assume that's supposed to be a question how pets are different from kids when it comes to government-set incentives about having more or fewer of them (if it is it would have been more direct to just ask that). First of all, arguments that we ought to have fewer kids are being made when it comes to environmental footprint. But even ignoring that the the birth rate is already below replacement rate. So unlike pets the government does not exactly have to go out of its way to incentivize people to have fewer of them. Then there's the issue that for society to continue to work we have to keep up the inter-generational contract, so at a larger scale having children is a basic need for society while pets are not. And last but not least this conversation is not about forbidding pets or children but factoring in externalties so people can make better resource tradeoffs, perhaps they could still have a kid or a pet but decide it's too costly to have both or abstain from some other luxuries to afford either. In that regard children and pets are similar.

the8472 7y ago

Pets have real costs associated with them (as this article highlights) and to my knowledge they're not considered basic needs by any stretch. So why should you be exempt from paying those costs, externalties included?

bjt2n3904 7y ago
Because it's quite enough to pay real costs... And now you want to add imaginary ones? No thank you.
xfitm3 7y ago
Where do you want to live? Soviet Russia? Pets provide companionship to millions of people - I'd bet you many of them consider that to be a basic need.
- the8472 7y ago
  Basic needs as defined by most western governments, e.g. for the purpose of calculating welfare, does not cover expenses for pets. They do not enjoy tax benefits like dependents do either. Of course people who enjoy something are more likely to define whatever they enjoy as basic need, that doesn't mean we let everyone use the definition that suits them.
me_me_me 7y ago
<kids> have real costs associated with them (as this article highlights) and to my knowledge they're not considered basic needs by any stretch. So why should you be exempt from paying those costs, externalties included?
- the8472 7y ago
  I'll assume that's supposed to be a question how pets are different from kids when it comes to government-set incentives about having more or fewer of them (if it is it would have been more direct to just ask that). First of all, arguments that we ought to have fewer kids are being made when it comes to environmental footprint. But even ignoring that the the birth rate is already below replacement rate. So unlike pets the government does not exactly have to go out of its way to incentivize people to have fewer of them. Then there's the issue that for society to continue to work we have to keep up the inter-generational contract, so at a larger scale having children is a basic need for society while pets are not. And last but not least this conversation is not about forbidding pets or children but factoring in externalties so people can make better resource tradeoffs, perhaps they could still have a kid or a pet but decide it's too costly to have both or abstain from some other luxuries to afford either. In that regard children and pets are similar.