Dc Johnson’s dictionary (1755)
defined a pet as: “Any creature that is
fondled or indulged”.
With thanks to 'One Cool Thing a Day' |
In 1796 a seemingly innocuous piece
of tax legislation caused uproar in England. The new law provoked a debate
about the very nature of the human spirit and whether owning a dog was a right
or a luxury.
At the end of the 18th
century the English government was desperate for money to finance the on-going
war with France. One way of raising the necessary cash was taxation. Tax was
raised on everything from soap, to tea, tobacco, windows and lace – and indeed
it didn’t stop there. Servants were a taxable asset under the auspices of the
Male Servants’ Tax bill 1777- 1852 and the Female Servant’s Tax bill 1795 – 1852- but fortunately (or
unfortunately?) wives and children were not taxable assets!. There was a Horse
Tax (for owners of carriages and saddle horses), a Farm Horse Tax (for horses
and mules used in trade) – but none of these taxes created quite the same stir
as the imposition of the Dog Tax in 1796.
With thanks to LeFunny.net |
The crux of the disquiet lay in the
very English relationship between man to dog. It raised a serious debate about
whether a dog was a luxury or a natural part of being human. The tax tapped
into questions about the emotional bond between the two. By putting a tax on
dogs it implied a shift in relationship from one of nurturing and caring, to
servility and subordination – and dog owners were enraged. To many this was
tantamount to taxing spouses and children , and people weren’t happy. This
wasn’t about the financial aspect of the tax, but the moral implication and
feelings ran high.
Those that supported the bill
pointed out that pet dogs were a luxury, and consumed food that could have been
better used to feed the poor. Opposers argued back that to need things beyond
the essential – such as a dog – was a distinctly human trait. These people
considered pets to be their friends, and putting a tax on them turned the
language of friendship to that of slavery and service.
With thanks to 'AnimalJam Wiki.' |
Interestingly, the idea behind the
dog tax may have originated in France (the very country the English needed to
raise funds to fight!) In 1770 a French census suggested a population of four
million dogs –an arthimetric extrapolation of the amount of food they consumed
was equivalent to feeding a sixth of the population. The French dog tax was
proposed to discourage dog ownership, as a means of disease control and to
increase food availability.
French authorities also insisted
dogs belonging to the poor spread disease – especially rabies. This was
considered a disease of dirty and hungry dogs, so poor labourers who – “Can scarcely feed themselves” should be
discouraged from owning dogs by means of a tax.
With thanks to 'TheMetaPicture.com' |
The difference between France and
England was that in the former the tax remained as a proposition, whereas in
the later it was acted upon. Whatever
the moral argument the English government won in the end – the Dog Tax was
imposed and stayed in place until 1882.
So what do you think? Are dogs part of the family or a luxury - do leave a comment!
For my husband and myself, our dogs have always been a part of the family! It's amazing, though, that so many kinds of taxes were levied. Taxes on servants? That turned them into property, not people.
ReplyDeleteAgreed - dogs have so much to offer and can bring out the best in people - a valuable addition to any family. Surprising though, even in this day and age, people can regard dog ownership as a 'right' and not think through whether they can afford to do it properly or not. Perhaps not a tax, but certainly some sort of ownership test, before taking on an animal might be appropriate - to ensure people are responsible enough.
DeleteThank you for leaving a comment, Elizabeth,
G x
The first picture made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the fun post!
ReplyDeleteIt's great isn't it. In fact they all made me smile - and the one about the rug is a definite grower....
DeleteG x
Definitely a part of the family which makes us also members of his pack. They can be quite expensive but worth every penny :)
ReplyDeleteLynn
I'm with you all the way - couldn't agree more. I guess, it would be a bit like having a tax on children...now wait a minute...there's an idea.
DeleteG x
Please don't mention this to the U.S. Congress - although I'm safe unless they start taxing cats. :)
ReplyDeleteI promise not to say anything *winks* .
DeleteThanks for visiting.
Grace x
great...
ReplyDelete