andrewclunn wrote:Okay... crazy, but I'm okay with people on welfare having pets. Only because I don't see a "no pets" rule as enforceable, and think the cost of attempting to enforce it would be greater than the savings. So long as they're not getting more money for having pets. Of course I'm opposed to all forms of welfare and want the poor to die of starvation already, but if we're gonna have welfare, then let them have pets.
Enforcement should be quite easy. Already have systems in place, just one more box on a form.......plenty of folk willing to grass others up, especially if a reward involved.
Claimant declares that no pets. If that proves otherwise they get to repay
all the benefits they have had.
and get sent to court.
FWIW I am very much pro a Benefits system (and not just for bread & water - but keeping a home Zoo is taking the p#ss

).