Should people in subsidized housing and on public assistance be allowed to own pets ?

If people can't afford to support themselves ... should they be allowed to have pets ? What about the problems caused by pets in multiple housing units ... is it worth it ?

Should people in subsidized housing and on public assistance be allowed to own pets ?-Myspace pets www.myspace.com

Not only should they be allowed pets, but the tax payers should pay for all the pets needs, including jeweled collars.

-Democrat

Should people in subsidized housing and on public assistance be allowed to own pets ?

-(Myspace.com)

Good question. There's probably no right to have a pet...but having one also helps out the animal who needs a home and can help the person who needs companionship. So you'd have to weigh those benefits with the costs of being responsible for an animal.

If the cost is low per animal, then 1-2 animals might be defensible; but yes, there's a moral and social problem if the person in need spends too much money on caring for animals.

Should people in subsidized housing and on public assistance be allowed to own pets ?

-(Myspace code myspace.com)

Yes, they should. Firstly, pets have been proven to have a therapeutic value - they can keep people from becoming depressed, ease social anxiety, etc. That alone makes it worth it.

Secondly, people who get public assistance get a certain amount the government considers appropriate, and can spend this as it best suits their needs. It mostly just covers the bare necessities, but there's a little bit "extra" in there - because ONLY food and shelter will not really sustain a person, and it'd be very bad for their health if they could not do anything for their mind/soul. Some chose to spend this on going out occasionally, some buy a few nice pieces of new clothing, some buy some art supplies, some buy alcohol - and some use this money to support a pet. (It's really not that expensive, baring veterinary emergencies.)

Lastly, there are way to many homeless pets already. If those pets belonging to people on public assistance weren't owned by them, they'd most likely be in a shelter (thereby still being supported by public means), or they'd simply be put to sleep.
What about not creating a two tier society where some people have all the rights and others don't have any. If you fell on hard times, would you get rid of your cat or dog or beloved pet? Be creative about the problem. Maybe the body corporate could do something useful for a change and start up a pet club, or offer services for pets. Pets are known to make people happier. This could cut down the crime rate in multiple housing units.

If they can't afford to support themselves maybe you have to be creative about that too.
This is ridiculous.

If you take care of your pets properly- you should have them.

If you can't take care of a pet (properly) you're an idiot!

It has nothing to do with your income!
I'm going to answer this by posing a few questions of my own. Should people over 65 and people with multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, quadra- or paraplegia, brain damage, nerve damage, seizure disorders, mental illness blindness, or severe chronic physical conditions limiting their ability to work, be forbidden to own an animal unless it is a service animal? Should people whose jobs have been exported to China or Mexico or whatever country is offering the lowest wage, be denied an animal? Should the woman and her kids who finally left her abusive husband not be allowed to keep the family pet?

My point is that people have low incomes for a variety of reasons--almost all of which are not because they are lazy. Accident, illness, abuse, age, job loss--all of these are conditions that lead to poverty. One in five Americans have a disability and unless you die first, you are going to get old. You may have diligently prepared for old age only to have your retirement snatched away by the bankruptcy of the company you work for as happened with Enron employees in my town. There is just no way of guaranteeing your future.

As to the second question. There are plenty of multi-family housing communities that are private housing that allow pets and it doesn't seem to be an issue. People have to be responsible pet owners, which is written into every rental contract so that if they aren't then there is recourse.