The philosophy behind dog taxes

Link

They say dogs tore Heraclitus to pieces, but regardless of that gruesome end, I’m curious to get your take from a broader perspective—you know, civilizational, moral, philosophical, historical... all of it.

Apparently, even for "man's best friend," we have to pay a tax.
Is this some kind of tax on companionship? A levy on our love for a living creature that can literally save a human life? We're talking about beings that serve as emotional anchors for the lonely, the abandoned, or the elderly folks who might have nobody else left in the world to lean on.

And then you've got certain animal welfare organizations backing this, likely hoping to pad their own pockets with the revenue. Isn't that just a blatant conflict of interest?

Harold Doyle3 said:Link

They say dogs tore Heraclitus to pieces, but regardless of that gruesome end, I’m curious to get your take from a broader perspective—you know, civilizational, moral, philosophical, historical... all of it.

Apparently, even for "man's best friend," we have to pay a tax.
Is this some kind of tax on companionship? A levy on our love for a living creature that can literally save a human life? We're talking about beings that serve as emotional anchors for the lonely, the abandoned, or the elderly folks who might have nobody else left in the world to lean on.

And then you've got certain animal welfare organizations backing this, likely hoping to pad their own pockets with the revenue. Isn't that just a blatant conflict of interest?

Oh, absolutely. It's a total conflict of interest. 👎 These animal rescue organizations pull in millions in profit on... let's say... a monthly basis. I personally know at least four "volunteers" at the local animal shelter who managed to buy luxury condos in Zurich, Rome, and Hong Kong after just two years of "volunteering." 🤷 And now they want to slap a tax on dog food too? I'd rather shoot him... actually, I'd rather hand a gift to some corrupt landlord than pay an extra tax on his pathetic little scraps. But what's your take on the TV tax? Are you people paying that too?

I honestly have no idea what you guys are even talking about.

The concept is basically that owners of neutered pets could get tax breaks, along with people who adopt from animal shelters, according to The New York Times.

Sounds like a tax on idiots who buy dogs just because they like the idea of one, without realizing the responsibility or needing an actual bond with an animal—which usually ends with those dogs being dumped on the street or in a shelter. What this actually achieves is encouraging sterilization, which lowers the number of strays roaming around and reduces the load on shelters.

I guess there isn't much to debate here; seems like a pretty positive move to me.

🤦

The government,
and specifically those elite little vultures at the top who are constantly starving everyone else out,
they’d probably try to slap a tax on the very air we breathe if they could,
but until then, they've got plenty of other ways to bleed us dry.
Right now, it's a tax on dogs.

I mean, seriously, have they even stocked up on enough lethal injections,
when they start dumping all these animals out on the streets?
Maybe they could take some of that stuff,
and just use it on themselves for once.

I think we need to get to the root of this issue. Is this actually about protecting dogs, or is it just about the bottom line? To be honest, it feels like profit is the only thing driving the bus here. Actually, it makes me wonder if we shouldn't just ban anyone breeding dogs purely for commercial gain. And don't even get me started on how humans have historically messed with these animals... forcing breeding between incompatible lines just to chase specific looks, ignoring all the massive health risks and genetic red flags. We’ve basically spent centuries sculpting dogs to fit our own selfish whims and aesthetic preferences. Then you've got dog shows and all that nonsense—it honestly feels like nothing more than legalized cruelty. Instead, we should be pushing people toward adoption. But to make that work, we really need better education, real training, and media outlets that stop peddling these shallow, materialistic ideals...

Exactly. You said it. Go tell them! 👍

Casey Gomez said:Oh, absolutely. It's a total conflict of interest. 👎 These animal rescue organizations pull in millions in profit on... let's say... a monthly basis. I personally know at least four "volunteers" at the local animal shelter who managed to buy luxury condos in Zurich, Rome, and Hong Kong after just two years of "volunteering." 🤷 And now they want to slap a tax on dog food too? I'd rather shoot him... actually, I'd rather hand a gift to some corrupt landlord than pay an extra tax on his pathetic little scraps. But what's your take on the TV tax? Are you people paying that too?

If they're going to tax us for watching TV, they might as well just broadcast Lassie, Inspector Rex, Hund, Beethoven, and 101 Dalmatians on a loop. At least then we'd get our money's worth.

Even though they shut that story down almost immediately after it broke, it feels pretty obvious that this is just more subconscious conditioning... trying to get us all used to accepting the inevitable spread of cosmic cancer as if it were the only reality left. Honestly, it’s basically the philosophical equivalent of a nationwide tax on everything under the sun.

Harold Doyle3 said:Link

They say dogs tore Heraclitus to pieces, but regardless of that gruesome end, I’m curious to get your take from a broader perspective—you know, civilizational, moral, philosophical, historical... all of it.

Apparently, even for "man's best friend," we have to pay a tax.
Is this some kind of tax on companionship? A levy on our love for a living creature that can literally save a human life? We're talking about beings that serve as emotional anchors for the lonely, the abandoned, or the elderly folks who might have nobody else left in the world to lean on.

And then you've got certain animal welfare organizations backing this, likely hoping to pad their own pockets with the revenue. Isn't that just a blatant conflict of interest?

The hounds of reason? Yeah, they can be pretty unruly beasts. 😬

Oh, yeah, a total conflict of interest. I mean, these animal rescue nonprofits are pulling in millions in profit... roughly... every single month. I personally know at least four "volunteers" at the local shelter who managed to buy condos in Zurich, Rome, and Hong Kong just from two years of "volunteering." And now they want to slap a tax on tips? I’d rather be executed... honestly, I'd rather hand a gift to some corrupt landlord than pay an extra tax on his ridiculous, pathetic little tip.

Nice "sources" you've got there. Clearly very well-researched. 🤦
I'm not even going to touch the bolded part. 🤮

I really hope you're just trolling.

@SmokeyTaboo
Spot on!

Joseph Bailey41 said:The hounds of reason? Yeah, they can be pretty unruly beasts. 😬

I mean actual dogs.

He was suffering from edema—dropsy, if you want to be old-fashioned—and since the doctors back then were pretty much useless, he tried some DIY alternative medicine. He smeared himself in pus and just laid out in the sun, hoping it would somehow flush out the excess fluid...

Reference:
"Neant, according to Kizichanin (FGrHist. 84 F 25 II 197), couldn't get the pus off his body, and because of some unknown changes, he was left in that state until he was eaten by dogs..."

Source:
Diels, THE PRESOCRATICS - fragments

Harold Doyle3 said:I mean actual dogs.

He was suffering from edema—dropsy, if you want to be old-fashioned—and since the doctors back then were pretty much useless, he tried some DIY alternative medicine. He smeared himself in pus and just laid out in the sun, hoping it would somehow flush out the excess fluid...

Reference:
"Neant, according to Kizichanin (FGrHist. 84 F 25 II 197), couldn't get the pus off his body, and because of some unknown changes, he was left in that state until he was eaten by dogs..."

Source:
Diels, THE PRESOCRATICS - fragments

To me, that just sounds like someone trying to smear a former rival's reputation.