That's a false equivalence. If bad health is a concern you handle that through a direct "tax" (e.g. increased health insurance premiums based on general lifesty

That's a false equivalence. If bad health is a concern you handle that through a direct "tax" (e.g. increased health insurance premiums based on general lifestyle/health assessments), not through such indirect measures as a non-pet tax. On the other hand the cost of pets (carbon footprint, other environmental damage) is directly related to the pets or their food, thus taxes would be directly levied on those aspects.