Personalfinance thread about pets = luxury
Substitute "pet" with dog and follow me please.
The argument that pets are luxuries to be afforded only when one can afford to take care of them. That's probably reasonable for the majority of working people but in the context of all people I would suggest it's less an issue of "the more you make the more you can afford a pet" and more so a barbell effect considering that pets for a lot of people are less a luxury and more of a necessity and part of their support structure.
If I were homeless, I would want a dog. A partner to get through the tough times with. The same is true as a middle income individual that "can afford to take care of a dog", but what does that mean? Could I afford to pay for cancer treatments for a long time? Probably not. Not being homeless and keeping my dog on his flea meds, does that mean I could judge a homeless person on their ability to take care of their dog? Those without means need a companion more than others, and that's my point. Dogs are more than pets for a lot of people.
Should that mean anyone with greater means should judge my ability to take care of a dog?
Dogs have been man's best friend since before anyone could judge someone for being able to afford taking care of one in the personal finance sense.
Submitted December 02, 2017 at 06:38PM by ahurapro
via reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/DOG/comments/7h6udn/personalfinance_thread_about_pets_luxury/?utm_source=ifttt
No comments:
Post a Comment