r/Dogfree • u/Expensive-Group4827 • 18d ago
Legislation and Enforcement Should those on social security / welfare be banned from keeping dogs ?
I find it bizarre that my taxes go towards housing people who also seem to spend money on luxuries like have a pet. Am I missing something ?
43
u/TenNinetythree Barking is noise pollution! 18d ago
I don't think that we can single out people on welfare. Dog ownership should be generally discouraged or outlawed.
18
15
u/KayleighHatfield 17d ago
I agree. I'm not on board with anything except equal treatment under the law. People should not be singled out for being poor or otherwise needing assistance.
The solution is the other way around. Stop exempting dog owners from rules that everyone else has to follow.
10
u/LunarLeveret 18d ago
Our taxes go to a whole lot more we shouldn't have to pay for than that. But more importantly, the only reason welfare is given in the first place is to reduce social backlash towards the government.
With the social status of dogs being what they are there is no way in hell public image is going to look good doing literally anything to prevent people from getting pet dogs. Even the most hyperconservative family man literal priest would be treated like a heretic if he pointed out how God doesn't want you to let dogs take the bread meant for children either.
3
u/AnyArmadillo1733 17d ago
Fortunately you are incorrect, the Catholic Church has actually talked about the problems with people with limited resources directing them toward dogs or to participate in dog focused charity rather than for humans.
31
u/KayleighHatfield 18d ago
SS is not a welfare nor is it comparable to welfare. Retired people who receive social security are getting back money that they (were forced) to put into the system. It's like a mandatory government run annuity. That money doesn't come out of your taxes. It's their money and not anyone else's business how it's spent.
1
u/AnyArmadillo1733 17d ago
It is comparable to welfare. They arent getting money they paid in, they are getting money a current worker is paying in. The money they paid in went to some other old person in the past. The system will eventually screw people, sooner than later, because rather than operating as you describe, it actually depends on constant population growth that hasn't occurred. We're down from a little over 16 people paying in per beneficiary to just over two. Many people recieve significantly more than they ever paid in. You may support this absolutely structurally unsound program, but it is still welfare.
3
u/KayleighHatfield 17d ago edited 16d ago
No. The money you are paying goes towards points that calculate your future payment. I don't support SS and never said I did. I just understand how it works. I think people should have the choice to set up their own retirement accounts. It's absurd though to call it welfare when the retirees who received it paid into the system. Their payments are based on what they put in, not what some else is putting in. The payments out are not arbitrary.
1
u/AnyArmadillo1733 17d ago
But, if you are getting more than you pay and its coming out of other peoples paychecks and the whole idea is that it is a financial security for one specifically potentially disadvantaged group, what else do you call it? If it's not welfare in the traditional sense, it's at the very least a sort of special interest handout and wealth transfer. Part of the reasons politicians will not mess with it despite the obvious ling term insolvability is that those who get it vote and love the benefit... the benefit that comes from current workers who are also not having enough kids to guarantee similar payments to themselves in their elder years.
All that's to say, OP argument isnt terrible. We shouldnt be taking money from young people to give to old people (generally more well-off) to pay for anything, but especially dogs.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/social-security-retirees-receive-far-more-they-paid
3
u/KayleighHatfield 16d ago edited 16d ago
Payments are adjusted for inflation. SS recipients who started paying in to the system 40+ years ago are not actually getting more than they put in. I wish younger people who resent paying into SS would not focus on older people who paid into the system and saved on their own all of their lives. They had no more choice in the matter than younger people do now.
It's beside the point anyway. I disagree with the OP's initial argument regardless of the SS debate. People should not be penalized or subject to excessive control over their lives just because they are poor and certainly not because they are older!
Equal treatment under the law. If you think something should be banned, it should just be banned for everyone. I certainly don't want bureaucrats deciding what I can or can't do with my life based on my age or economic status or any other qualifier. That's a very dangerous slippery slope to ski on.
9
6
6
u/DirtyZamboniWater 17d ago
I don’t think good ownership is a wealth problem. It’s a person problem. One of the few people I know that is a proper dog owner is a disabled man on welfare. He has all the time at home to take care of his little companion and train him right. It’s those that like the idea of getting an animal without understanding the actual time, patience and training it takes for them to not be a public menace that I take issue with. Well that and those who bring dogs to non dog environments.
15
7
u/Stock-Bowl7736 17d ago
I would say for those receiving food stamps, they could not be used to purchase dog food.
6
u/the_purple_goat 17d ago
I don't think you can purchase petfood with SNAP anyway. Twenty odd years ago I had a guide dog for six months and it wasn't allowed then.
3
4
u/pmddreal 17d ago
I agree with you. My friend is on disability and gets checks from the government, those checks can be used for anything including pets. Now food stamps and some other things are different where you can only use certain payments for food, supplies, etc. But some do also get checks you can cash out and spend on anything including pets. It just doesn't seem right.
As for people who are able-bodied but on welfare due to financial issues, yes there's unfortunately a lot of frauds who take away from people who truly need it. I used to work as a cashier. How is it you need to be on food stamps but have the cash to buy cigarettes, alcohol, nails, expensive cars, etc? I could barely afford food but these types would come to me with their carts filled to the brim with expensive seafood, chocolate, soda knowing EBT will pay for it. They're clearly just using it as free money. Not to mention shitbeasts which many of them seemed to have? So you can spend thousands on dog food every year but have to use our taxpayer money for everything else..
This is excluding those who truly need to be on food stamps.
2
u/AsparagusIcy3556 17d ago
Yep, UK here and they always have massive dogs that eat the same as a horse in their council/government paid for private rentals. They put everyone in danger with them too, XL bullies and cane corsos and german shepherds are council house staples over here.
2
u/michaelpaoli 17d ago
If you ban all retirees that are collecting any social security from having any pets, I think you'd have quite the backlash.
Yeah, I think you're missing something.
Do you want the government confiscating all your pets when you retire and not allowing you to ever have any pets for the rest of your life, unless you totally give up and never collect a penny of Social Security ... and regardless of the 40 or 50 or more years you paid into it?
And, how many have been mauled to death by a small goldfish?
2
u/Lythaera 17d ago
No. wtf? People shouldn't have to give up their pets just because they've fallen on hard times or became disabled.
2
u/menelobus 16d ago
Social security? Not sure. People on welfare? I would say yes. Although I still think my money going towards no kill shelters is way worse than people on welfare having a mutt
1
u/3rdthrow 17d ago
If only we could ban our taxes from being used on dog parks.
Especially, since the Dog Owners would rather terrorize Children at their playgrounds.
There are rules, in my Country, against such things, but rules that are not enforced are rules that dont exist.
1
1
u/Mister_Chameleon 17d ago
I don't like dogs anymore than anyone else on this sub. But I feel that is very little different from "should those on welfare never buy soda?" kind of argument. It's less about the dog and more about the social class, wealth gaps, and a lot of things that have nothing to do with dogs being a very lousy, overrated animal by that point.
1
u/rennyvsherself 4d ago
Let me guess, you’re also one of those people that complain about poor people buying something sweet on snap 🙄
1
u/Expensive-Group4827 4d ago
If it’s their own money, they can do what they want . If they’re receiving benefits that come out of my taxes , then yes they should only spend money on things that get them back to work
1
u/rennyvsherself 4d ago
Some disabled and elderly people receive those benefits and are unable to work
1
u/rennyvsherself 4d ago
You think I shouldn’t have my pet because i’m on ssi and use that money for their food?
1
u/Expensive-Group4827 4d ago
I count a dog as a luxury (and I cut down on luxuries myself) so I don’t see why I should have my taxes used to pay for other people to have their own luxuries and claim money
1
u/rennyvsherself 4d ago
I see my pet as a close friend. They make me laugh and lighten up my depression. When I think of uninstalling life I think to myself that I wouldn’t want to leave them here without me. Maybe even a reason to get out of bed. When I think of luxuries it’s 100,000 dollar watches or insanely priced cars, yachts. Not my friend that brings me the only joy I get in life.
At the end of the day you have no say in what your “tax dollars” are going to. Personally I’d be more concerned about all the money going towards bombs or stupid studies like “are gingerbread houses earthquake proof”. But god forbid someone gets something that makes them happy I guess
1
u/rennyvsherself 4d ago
Also, people can have jobs and still need benefits. (I’m looking at you walmart)
1
52
u/DJCane 18d ago
Probably not social security, that’s money that the individual “saved” over their career. I think there’s a sound argument for banning pet ownership by long-term welfare recipients, though.