Should people be taxed 100% on what they spend on pets and the money used for the poor and needy?

Question

Isn't it weird how we allow people to live in gutters yet we are treating pets like people?

SEE THIS REPORT BELOW

These pets, especially cats and dogs, are also increasingly considered to be an essential part of a family, with U.S. pet owners spending more time and money (estimated at nearly $41 billion in 2007) on the health and happiness of their pets in recent years. Things that would once have seemed extravagant—doggy daycares, pet cemeteries, and an expanding array of pet surgeries and treatments—are now as common as, well, the family dog.

Answer 1

We should only help people who help themselves. Sorry, i'd rather have my money go to my unconditionally loving pet than some bum who refuses to get a job or some lady who keeps popping out kids for welfare.

People should be allowed to do what they want with the money THEY EARNED. What are you, a communist?

Answer 2

Those of us with pets work just as hard as those who don't and probably contribute more to charity than you do. Not everyone is crazy with all these accessories. I certainly cannot afford baby carriages, etc. like a lot of people do. Look at the idiotic stars and their foo foo dogs. But my pets are part of my family.

Okay. How about taxing all those who have more than one child 100%? What do you need more than one for anyway. Seems fair to me, what with all the homeless children out there, that the money you spend on the extra kids could go to the homeless ones..

How about taxing those who own boats for recreation 100% and donating all that money to charity. Or those who go on vacation each year. Why, that money could go for other uses don't ya think?

To each his own. How they spend their money is their own business as is the way you spend your money. It would be very interesting to see just how much you give to charity and what luxuries you spend your money on that others cannot afford.

Pets are children to some people. It's been documented that people with diseases, etc. recover faster when they have pets. Just because you hate animals does not mean others have to be taxed for their love of them. I'm sure you do things to relax and there are things that mean a lot to you that others would find ludicrous.

Answer 3

Typical Political stance. Find something a group of people do which you dont like and then tax it.

By the same token, perhaps we should tax emails? Or maybe we should take the money spent on home computers and use it on the homeless? Or maybe we should take all the money spent on Makeup and use it on the homeless?

you see? No matter what group you attack, SOMEONE will not want to be taxed in that manner. NO matter how distasteful you may find the subject, be it pets, or alcahol, or makeup, no one deserves to be taxed because of thier own interests or spending habits.

Answer 4

Are you kidding? No!!!! One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Do you think only the rich has pets? No, they don't.

I have 2 cats and a dog. I don't have children. I cannot afford children and the world is overpopulated. Our resources are dwindling. We should tax the super rich at much higher rates than we do currently. Trickle down economics is a farce.

Answer 5

Oh my god.
There are a LOT of other things taking up money, other than pets.
Pets are important to many people; and if their owners wish to help the poor, then they can.
I have two cats in my family, whom I love dearly, and I still donate to charities occasionally.
So no, people shouldn't be taxed 100%.
It would end up in the governments hands anyway - if they really wanted to help the poor, they would've done already.

Answer 6

Pets are very good for people with family's and people living on their own, i.e. widows or widowers. People who live in the gutter as you put it, can get a job if they want too, but most of them make no effort to climb out of that situation or are too lazy to try, or too drugged up to try.

Answer 7

Part of me thinks it's wrong that there are people living rough whilst others live in the lap of luxury, and the obvious reaction would be to want taxation to help them.

But there's a problem to that. Taxation to help the poor and needy has a very unfortunate side-effect - it also helps the lazy. I don't want part of my tax helping someone who is perfectly able to go and work, but just can't be bothered.
Also, some people deliberately choose to live rough. You can't force them to accept charity.

It's a very difficult one - people who fall upon hard times through no fault of their own deserve help, but how can we differentiate them from the lazy people, who don't deserve help?

Answer 8

Definitely not, we who work already are overtaxed to pay for the feckless who cannot be bothered to work but who can find plenty of money for booze, fags and entertainment (sorry US folk, fags is English slang for cigarettes). Pets are better than many people anyway

Answer 9

I feel that is you can spend that much money of an animal then yes it should be taxed to help the poor but not to help the ones that dont want to help themself.

And to the ones that say f the poor. Well I am poor and its not by choice so before you go judging someone else then look at ignorant you are being..........

Answer 10

I guess Mom and Dad never bought you a puppy. If you ever had a pet that actually loved you unconditionally the way pets do, you would never even think about asking a question as stupid as this.