Get rid of your pets to go Insolvent??

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Tell that to the guy living on the streets in Dublin who had his pet rabbit thrown into the river.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/yob-locked-up-for-throwing-homeless-1472845

Ability to pay for an animals well being is not guaranteed by someones financial status. Sure there is plenty of pet owners who can afford their pets but threat them appallingly.

So if I find a single example of somebody spending money on car maintenance rather than on something that I judge that they need more, I can safely claim that people who are in financial trouble are likely to take just as good care of their cars?

Jeez. The world isn't the way you want it to be, it's the way it is, regardless of how hard you squint at it.

Anynama141

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Anyways I've to leave the debate for now. I've to got to go and collect a stray sick cat that we paid to have treated, neutered and microchipped. We aren't wealthy and the treatment won't have been cheap, but we will do without luxuries for a while. It isn't easy to find the money but its a damn site easier than trying to turn a blind eye to suffering. He's part of the family now.

Yes, and I donate heavily to charities for humans, because I like humans too.

ISDW

Anynama141 wrote: »

Aside from common sense, you are right, there is no proof. Would you be equally dubious if I said that people who are in financial difficulty are more likely to neglect the maintenance of their cars?

I have no proof of that either.

Again, not necessarily. Plenty of top end cars on the road that appear to have dodgy indicators

And I'm sorry, it is not common sense to make the judgement that people that have money do not neglect their animals. If that were the case, then there would have been no cruelty cases during the boom years, but that was not so. Puppy farmers tend to have quite a lot of money, so why do they not vaccinate their breeding stock? Why do they keep them in unsuitable conditions, and not take them to vets for treatment? Why do people, when they buy puppies from these people, who are well off, find that the puppies are crawling with fleas, lice and filled with worms?

Why are most shelters around the country run by people with barely enough money to live on themselves? Run by people who go without so that the animals do not. Show me one person who runs a shelter that has a nice car, and new clothes on a regular basis. People make decisions, and spend what money they have on the animals.

Tazz T

It's not about rights, it's about justice. Did the insolvent bankers have to give up their pets?

Or their yachts?

Or their big cars?

Or their million pound holiday homes?

All you begrudgers raging at ordinary people going 'insolvent', yet want to keep their pet are raging at the wrong people. And if you should ever end up in their shoes, you'll change your mindset quickly enough.

milltown

Page after page of posts likening pets to children? Pure hyperbole.

The morality of the banks' behaviour prior to the recession has been done to death but if anybody can't use reason and common sense just because the bank said they had credit available or, god forbid, pre-approved them for a loan they never asked for, it's absolute nonsense to pretend the situation they found themselves in was anybody's fault but their own. My local shop usually has a special offer on some unknown brand of vodka. That doesn't mean I have to buy it. It certainly doesn't mean if I end up an alcoholic that it was the fat cat shopkeeper who is to blame.

The point of the insolvency legislation is basically to keep people out of jail who entered into contracts with banks and other financial institutions, then broke the terms of those contracts. As a mortgage paying taxpayer I think insolvency looks too accessible but I'll have to see how it works in practice. If people viewed it for what it is, an alternative to jail, I imagine they would be more likely to put absolutely everything on the table, including pets. If you leave the insolvency out of the debate for a minute and tell me that you would go to jail and leave your actual human family to fend for themselves before you would have your dog put down then you are insane and no financial legislation should apply to you.

borderlinemeath

desertcircus wrote: »

I specifically said that a pet wasn't the same as a bike. The reason I was comparing them at all was to draw attention to the flaws in an argument based on benefit to the person.

The flaw is that a bike is an inanimate object, unable to feel pain or emotion. Yet for the purposes of insolvency you compare it to a pet who does. That to me is flawed.

That said, a pet should NEVER be equated with a human child. Treating them as such is nonsensical and outright dangerous.

The comparison with a child is because a pet becomes part of your family for the duration of it's life. You feed it and nurture it, train it, love it and receive unconditonal love back. Replace the word 'train' for 'educate' and the process for a child is the same. You don't upgrade your pet like you do your car or your bike, they shouldn't be treated as disposable consumer items.

borderlinemeath

milltown wrote: »

Page after page of posts likening pets to children? Pure hyperbole.

The morality of the banks' behaviour prior to the recession has been done to death but if anybody can't use reason and common sense just because the bank said they had credit available or, god forbid, pre-approved them for a loan they never asked for, it's absolute nonsense to pretend the situation they found themselves in was anybody's fault but their own. My local shop usually has a special offer on some unknown brand of vodka. That doesn't mean I have to buy it. It certainly doesn't mean if I end up an alcoholic that it was the fat cat shopkeeper who is to blame.

The point of the insolvency legislation is basically to keep people out of jail who entered into contracts with banks and other financial institutions, then broke the terms of those contracts. As a mortgage paying taxpayer I think insolvency looks too accessible but I'll have to see how it works in practice. If people viewed it for what it is, an alternative to jail, I imagine they would be more likely to put absolutely everything on the table, including pets. If you leave the insolvency out of the debate for a minute and tell me that you would go to jail and leave your actual human family to fend for themselves before you would have your dog put down then you are insane and no financial legislation should apply to you.

Welcome to the forum Milltown!
So what pet do you have that you are willing to give up for insolvency?

Anynama141

ISDW wrote: »

And I'm sorry, it is not common sense to make the judgement that people that have money do not neglect their animals.

This is an epic misunderstanding or a blatant strawman. Where did you get the notion that this is my argument?


By suggesting that there is no difference in the rate of animal neglect between people who are in financial difficulty and those who are not in financial difficulty, you are essentially claiming that either:

1. People who are in financial difficulty ALWAYS put their animals ahead of every other consideration and thus the animals never suffer from cutbacks

or

2. The kind of people who do not get into financial difficulty are also the kind of people who are far more likely to be cruel to animals unnecessarily.

Anynama141

Tazz T wrote: »

It's not about rights, it's about justice. Did the insolvent bankers have to give up their pets?

Or their yachts?

Or their big cars?

Or their million pound holiday homes?

Presumably yes, they did. Which bankers are you referring to exactly? I can only think of David Drumm and Sean Fitzpatrick. I'd certainly agree that they should have to give up luxuries same as anyone else.

Tazz T wrote: »

I
All you begrudgers raging at ordinary people going 'insolvent', yet want to keep their pet are raging at the wrong people. And if you should ever end up in their shoes, you'll change your mindset quickly enough.

I'm not raging at anyone. The rules should be the same for all, and I've outlined my view - that spending €20 per week on the family dog/cat is perfectly reasonable. But keeping several animals or expensive animals at the expense of the tax-payer and your creditors is not reasonable and is not fair, whether you are Joe Normal or Sean Fitzpatrick.

milltown

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Welcome to the forum Milltown!
So what pet do you have that you are willing to give up for insolvency?

No pets currently. Would love a dog but Mr. and Mrs.Milltown both work so that's not an option. I'll go between the lines and answer the question you're really asking and say that everything else that either costs money or could raise money would be up for consideration though.

Anynama141

milltown wrote: »

The point of the insolvency legislation is basically to keep people out of jail who entered into contracts with banks and other financial institutions, then broke the terms of those contracts.

Ah here, it's a long time since people were sent to jail for going bankrupt. I don't think it's only Borderlinemeath who is engaging in hyperbole.

ISDW

Anynama141 wrote: »

This is an epic misunderstanding or a blatant strawman. Where did you get the notion that this is my argument?


By suggesting that there is no difference in the rate of animal neglect between people who are in financial difficulty and those who are not in financial difficulty, you are essentially claiming that either:

1. People who are in financial difficulty ALWAYS put their animals ahead of every other consideration and thus the animals never suffer from cutbacks

or

2. The kind of people who do not get into financial difficulty are also the kind of people who are far more likely to be cruel to animals unnecessarily.

No point in trying to discuss anything with you is there, you refuse to admit you may possibly be wrong about something. You are the one that has been saying that people that suffer financial difficulty neglect their animals more than people who have money. That is what you have said. It is not necessarily true, but you're not going to acknowledge that, just keep throwing the stupid strawman argument out there, AH is a different forum btw.

Anynama141

borderlinemeath wrote: »

The flaw is that a bike is an inanimate object, unable to feel pain or emotion. Yet for the purposes of insolvency you compare it to a pet who does. That to me is flawed.

I don't think the argument is that the bike loves you, it's that you love the bike, or your stamps, or your vintage car, or whatever.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

The comparison with a child is because a pet becomes part of your family for the duration of it's life. You feed it and nurture it, train it, love it and receive unconditonal love back. Replace the word 'train' for 'educate' and the process for a child is the same. You don't upgrade your pet like you do your car or your bike, they shouldn't be treated as disposable consumer items.

And I think the comparison with a child is flawed because, while animals do feel pain and emotion, to say that your cat or your snake or your horse 'loves you' the way a child loves you is also nonsense. We've had cats for years, but we lost one of them, our oldest, when we moved house - it turns out the cat who 'loved us' actually loved the old house a lot more than it did us.

Anynama141

ISDW wrote: »

No point in trying to discuss anything with you is there, you refuse to admit you may possibly be wrong about something. You are the one that has been saying that people that suffer financial difficulty neglect their animals more than people who have money.

Yes, that is exactly what I have said. Because it makes common sense - not everybody is going to sacrifice paying for food for their kids or paying their mortgage in order to take care of their animals. Am I right?

ISDW wrote: »

It is not necessarily true, but you're not going to acknowledge that, just keep throwing the stupid strawman argument out there, AH is a different forum btw.

It is not necessarily true, but it seems very, very likely, does it not? Do you have a counterargument to make?

I have not made any strawman argument, but you have as I highlighted. Please try to address the points I'm making rather than personalising the discussion - I am happy to debate any point you make and address any argument, but there is no need to resort to insults etc.

borderlinemeath

Anynama141 can you point out where ISDW insulted you or where I made claims about your character? You seem to be throwing a few toys out of the pram by claiming this when we do counter argue you.

borderlinemeath

Anynama141 wrote: »

I don't think the argument is that the bike loves you, it's that you love the bike, or your stamps, or your vintage car, or whatever.

And I think the comparison with a child is flawed because, while animals do feel pain and emotion, to say that your cat or your snake or your horse 'loves you' the way a child loves you is also nonsense. We've had cats for years, but we lost one of them, our oldest, when we moved house - it turns out the cat who 'loved us' actually loved the old house a lot more than it did us.

No, it's not nonsense at all, of course an animal can love you. Now, now, there you go making claims about what people can and can't think, lacking a bit of empathy are we?

Animals thrive on routine, you disrupted the cats routine without helping it acclimatise to the new house. What did you expect when you opened the door and let it out into a new neighbourhood? Cats are very territorial and of course it would have bolted back to it's old home where it felt safer.

Anynama141

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Anynama141 can you point out where ISDW insulted you or where I made claims about your character? You seem to be throwing a few toys out of the pram by claiming this when we do counter argue you.

If found the highlighted parts a bit rude, especially considering that I am addressing all the arguments made here, while my points are being ignored or deliberately misconstrued:

ISDW wrote: »

No point in trying to discuss anything with you is there, you refuse to admit you may possibly be wrong about something. You are the one that has been saying that people that suffer financial difficulty neglect their animals more than people who have money. That is what you have said. It is not necessarily true, but you're not going to acknowledge that, just keep throwing the stupid strawman argument out there, AH is a different forum btw.

I'm well aware that this is not AH - I don't tend to post there because of the way it is.

That doesn't mean that I should not be allowed have a polite discussion with people who have an opposing viewpoint on another forum.

To get back on track: do you think that there should be any limit on what people spend on pets if they go from a position of being able to afford them to a position of insolvency? From there, perhaps we can establish the true extent of the gap between our views. I've already said that I think it's perfectly reasonable for a family to keep a dog or cat or similar pet that doesn't cost too much. Where would you see the limit?

Anynama141

borderlinemeath wrote: »

No, it's not nonsense at all, of course an animal can love you. Now, now, there you go making claims about what people can and can't think, lacking a bit of empathy are we?

Again, this is just an unsupported claim coupled with an unnecessary insult. I refuse to accept that a cat 'loves' a person the way a child does. Or a snake, or a dog, or anything else. Dogs would be the closest thing IMV - but I still would not anthropomorphise them to that extent.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Animals thrive on routine, you disrupted the cats routine without helping it acclimatise to the new house. What did you expect when you opened the door and let it out into a new neighbourhood? Cats are very territorial and of course it would have bolted back to it's old home where it felt safer.

Thank you for asking what steps we took to help the cat acclimatise before making that unfounded claim. :rolleyes:

For your information, we spent 3 months or so trying to acclimatise the cat. It didn't work because it didn't love us like a child does. She also left behind her son - apparently she didn't love him very much either.

Pretzill

I would risk insolvency in answer to the OP - my pets are part of my family not children - in that they're needs can be great but I'm spared the costs of putting them through college and spared teenage strops too!

They're seems to be a mood or tone on these boards that wants to direct everything back to the economy and like to do so from high horses they don't have to feed. Truth is pets have always been companions through tough times and good time for their owners. I'm not well off but I've promised the dogs a leather recliner each complete with a biccky dispenser and a 40 inch widescreen tv streaming animal planet when I win the lotto. For now a warm bed, games, walks, food and.love doesn't cost much

borderlinemeath

To get back on track: do you think that there should be any limit on what people spend on pets if they go from a position of being able to afford them to a position of insolvency? From there, perhaps we can establish the true extent of the gap between our views. I've already said that I think it's perfectly reasonable for a family to keep a dog or cat or similar pet that doesn't cost too much. Where would you see the limit?

I think 'family pet' needs definition. A stable of racehorses, as much as I love horses shouldn't be considered a family pet. But if somebody has 2/3 dogs, a cat and a goldfish and has had them many years it should not be up to the government to insist they get rid of them.

Anynama141

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I think 'family pet' needs definition. A stable of racehorses, as much as I love horses shouldn't be considered a family pet. But if somebody has 2/3 dogs, a cat and a goldfish and has had them many years it should not be up to the government to insist they get rid of them.

I don't think they should have to get rid of them: I'm saying that beyond a certain allowance - the €30 odd euro per week allocated to socialisation - then the money needed to pay for them will have to come from somewhere else; either the heating budget, the family food budget, the TV budget - whatever. Nobody should be made give up their pets: but nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's pets either.

anniehoo

Borderlinemeath you are sailing close to the wind here with insulting another poster. Please do not comment on another posters history or post it within a thread.

This has been a relatively healthy debate but the tone is changing to one of animosity. Please keep your replies civil and to the point.

desertcircus

borderlinemeath wrote: »

The flaw is that a bike is an inanimate object, unable to feel pain or emotion. Yet for the purposes of insolvency you compare it to a pet who does. That to me is flawed.



The comparison with a child is because a pet becomes part of your family for the duration of it's life. You feed it and nurture it, train it, love it and receive unconditonal love back. Replace the word 'train' for 'educate' and the process for a child is the same. You don't upgrade your pet like you do your car or your bike, they shouldn't be treated as disposable consumer items.

For the second time: I was responding to an argument that said pets shouldn't be part of an insolvency process because of the measurable health and life benefits of having a pet. My counterpoint was that if measurable health and life benefits come with a €6,000 road bike, then either the bike should be exempt from insolvency proceedings on the same basis or the pet shouldn't. The argument I was responding to did not reference a pet's status as a live animal as a reason, and thus a bike is a valid comparator despite the fact that it's an inanimate object. Repeatedly bringing up the fact that a pet is alive does nothing to change the fact that a bike can also bring with it significant health and life benefits. I didn't bring it up because it's not relevant to the question of whether either or both provide benefits beyond their cost.

Mo60

desertcircus wrote: »

For the second time: I was responding to an argument that said pets shouldn't be part of an insolvency process because of the measurable health and life benefits of having a pet. My counterpoint was that if measurable health and life benefits come with a €6,000 road bike, then either the bike should be exempt from insolvency proceedings on the same basis or the pet shouldn't.

A E6,000 road bike is a possesion that can be sold for a cheaper version. If you have an old crossbreed dog you are not very likely to be able to obtain anything, so I can't quite see the point you are trying to make.

Feathers

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm surprised that this clause is even legal, given the fact that the most likely outcome for a pet that someone is forced to surrender will be euthanasia, I doubt it would be difficult for someone to successfully challenge it in court.

What clause?

To the people equating pets with children though — do you think that the guideline amounts should have a separate allowance for pet owners? (Maybe fixed, or maybe that increases on a per pet basis?) If so, how much do you think they should get?

Or do you think that the money spent on pets should come out of the same household budget that everyone else gets?

This seems to be what the argument is coming down to. Some people are arguing against being forced to give up pets (which they aren't being asked to do), but I don't think anyone is arguing for that. Most people on the other side of the coin are just saying that it should come out of your given budget.

Grandchildren (or grown adult children) at the other end of the country are a part of a person's family. They given love & affection and maintaining contact helps with depression, etc. Should these people be given an additional budget for travel? Or should they be asked to save for these things out of the regular discretionary budget?dget.

BornToKill

Hellrazer wrote: »

Have to have a bit of a rant here.

Just heard on the radio that one of the rules in the new insolvency bill is to get rid of your pets in order to get the settlement set up.

Are these people living in the real world??Whats next get rid of the kids??
Stop eating?Dont wear clothes??

Thing is, though, that what you heard on the radio just isn't true. The guidelines are up on the ISI website. There's nothing about getting rid of pets in them.

annascott

Do people with adopted children have to give them back too? This is one of the most insensitive things that I have ever heard. What about the pets distress?

This needs to be fought...

PhoenixParker

Can someone point me to the part of the legislation that says anything about pets?

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2012/5812/b58112d.pdf

It'd be much appreciated, because I can't see it.

Aside from that.
Well many things that are necessary parts of life can also be luxuries.
Food can be basic, nutritious, good value and home cooked,
or it can be champagne, caviar and a steak in Shanahans.

Clothes can be basic, hard-wearing and smart enough for work
or they can be designer own-brand labels.

Pets can be a single dog that's part of the family since the year dot
or they can be a stable full of race-horses and a lion enclosure.

Banning pets outright would be idiotic, but if they include an outright right to keep pets in the insolvency bill, they're opening a loophole six miles wide for every insolvent shyster in the country to drive through.

kunst nugget

annascott wrote: »

Do people with adopted children have to give them back too? This is one of the most insensitive things that I have ever heard. What about the pets distress?

This needs to be fought...

Pets and animals are not on a par with children, why do people keep making this analogy?

Anynama141

kunst nugget wrote: »

Pets and animals are not on a par with children, why do people keep making this analogy?

I can certainly understand how some people can see animals as on a par with children, if that's how they feel. After all, some people see their gardens as their children. It's not an outrageous or negative outlook by any means.

What I can't understand is that they expect everyone else to agree with them.