If you can't afford £100 tax, should you really have horses?

Ok, I get the point re the £100 and i'm sure most people would be able to rustle this up if it was necessary BUT why then wouldn't the same rule apply to dogs, cat, guines pigs, rabbits etc etc (the list goes on). If it's to do with diseases surely these animals too are capable of spreading disease and, like many horses are kept as pets.

They are not a necessity surely either and are also a 'luxury' for a family to have so, by rights people should be taxed if they own a dog/cat then?! I don't see the difference.

TV's, X-Box's, Playstations, Mobile phones etc are NOT a necessity but it seems every benefit scrounger and lowlife seem to have them in abundance (they also quite often have dogs and other pets and use the free PDSA vet service to treat them!!!) and it's mine and your taxes that are paying for them.

I work, have always worked, I pay taxes why shouldn't i be able to have the 'luxury' of owning a horse? If it was to do with horses using roads etc then again my question would be - what about dogs?! I think it's a ludicrous idea and until they do decide to tax us on our dogs and other pets then I would not pay a tax on my horse.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry a little off topic here but i would like to know how they will police it, they have not done it with passports, as there are many horses out there still not passported and microchipped.
I suppose it will again be us with passports, would that just not make people who buy, not change the ownership details, hence the old owners and breeders get hit and have to prove they have not got the horse hidden in another field somewhere, as i am sure the people they employ to enforce this will have no damned clue about the horse industry

[/ QUOTE ]

and more to the point will this tax be used to pay for people to enforce this??

In reply to OP. For the leisure owner, yes, if they can't afford £100 then they need to think about what they'll do. Afterall, if you own two horses and they BOTH have accidents it wouldnt be a one off excess payment for both, it would be separate, so the 'well, I've got £150 excess sitting by but that's it', isnt good enough, not really. For buisnesses, i can see how it would hit harder. Horse sales are down right now anyway, and ponies being abandoned willy nilly, I do think this tax will hit them hard. The hunt who has to find another x amount for tax on hirelings, the small time breeder who has to tax 10 or 20 horses, and of course, the knock on effect on the rest of the industry, farriers, saddlers etc who will lose work due to people deciding to have oldies PTS rather than pay the tax.
For me, personally, it's tax on two ponies, one nearing his thirties and one companion. I don't agree with the tax, but will pay it if I have to, I havent lots of money spare, but would find the money from somewhere.

In a nutshell, all the more reason for us to turn our backs on Labour Goverment. They've taken Fox hunting from us and now they're threatening the livlihood of other country folk.
Not on...
mad.gif
 
I believe the tax suggested has changed to £100 from the initial £10 and that is the main problem.

Also, I understand there are actually vaccines for these major diseases (correct me if I'm wrong) as there are for foot and mouth and blue tongue but many farmers do not vaccinate against the diseases. I'd be more than happy to vaccinate my horses against the diseases but paying £100 for nothing?? Makes not sense.
 
[ QUOTE ]


I totally agree. Being broke is being unable to put food in your children's mouths!
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Hang on, I'm a adult, single and childless by choice, so my income can go on horses. The taxes I pay now are already paying more than enough towards other people's sprogs, if you choose to have children, why am I less broke than you if you can't feed them and I can't feed my horses?

Tax on children, I say.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I get the point re the £100 and i'm sure most people would be able to rustle this up if it was necessary BUT why then wouldn't the same rule apply to dogs, cat, guines pigs, rabbits etc etc (the list goes on). If it's to do with diseases surely these animals too are capable of spreading disease and, like many horses are kept as pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

because as I said earlier those animals are not million/billion pound industries which would have severed effect on the UK economy if they were to have an outbreak of something.

yes we keep horses as pets but we also have a racing industry in this country which our pets affect.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I totally agree. Being broke is being unable to put food in your children's mouths!
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Hang on, I'm a adult, single and childless by choice, so my income can go on horses. The taxes I pay now are already paying more than enough towards other people's sprogs, if you choose to have children, why am I less broke than you if you can't feed them and I can't feed my horses?

Tax on children, I say.
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have kids, yet, but I know I'll have more than enough money to feed them when they come along, and have more than enough money to be able to absorb a £100 a year charge however much I disagree with it (and I do disagree with it). Being broke is not about being unable to afford luxuries, it's being unable to feed yourselves adequately, heat your home etc.

I would happily go along with a sprog tax, as maybe it would stop people from breeding inappropriately!
grin.gif
 
I am shocked that the proposed tax has risen tenfold from £10 per horse to £100. I am a breeder and this recession has hit us really badly. I have not covered any of my mares this year and am reducing numbers so that we can get through.

£100 a horse would be a lot of money for us, and more to the point, how the hell would it be policed, what happens when you sell a horse, what happens if it dies the day after you pay. It is the most ludicrous thing I have hear dof and I will be refusing to pay.

I am already disgusted at the way DEFRA turns a total blind eye to blatant illegal passport applications that mean horse's welfare is badly compromised. They can shove their bloody horse tax
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hang on, I'm a adult, single and childless by choice, so my income can go on horses. The taxes I pay now are already paying more than enough towards other people's sprogs, if you choose to have children, why am I less broke than you if you can't feed them and I can't feed my horses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



I would happily go along with a sprog tax, as maybe it would stop people from breeding inappropriately!
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Trouble is, the ones who breed inappropriately don't pay income tax anyway!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hang on, I'm a adult, single and childless by choice, so my income can go on horses. The taxes I pay now are already paying more than enough towards other people's sprogs, if you choose to have children, why am I less broke than you if you can't feed them and I can't feed my horses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly

[/ QUOTE ]

Feeding horses is a luxury. Feeding yourself and your family is not.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I get the point re the £100 and i'm sure most people would be able to rustle this up if it was necessary BUT why then wouldn't the same rule apply to dogs, cat, guines pigs, rabbits etc etc (the list goes on). If it's to do with diseases surely these animals too are capable of spreading disease and, like many horses are kept as pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

because as I said earlier those animals are not million/billion pound industries which would have severed effect on the UK economy if they were to have an outbreak of something.

yes we keep horses as pets but we also have a racing industry in this country which our pets affect.

[/ QUOTE ] dogs are a multi million pound industry!!!! Dog racing, breeding, Crufts, and the amount of people who own dog is far greater than horses! plus how many adds on the TV/paper/bill-boards etc do you see advertising dog food etc. In truth the only reason why they are not being taxed is because there would be more fuss made- imagine all those who owned a dog kicking up a fuss- it would be in the news immediately. There are fewer horse owners etc so our fuss is containable.
 
Surely they (at least dogs) are though? There are dog shows, breeders, greyhound racing not to mention the millions of individual dog owners and industry connected to dogs that would be affected.

Millions surely must be spent on dog feeds, putting dogs in kennels etc etc.

Just see it as a comparison to horses really, except there are tonnes more dogs about!

I'd 2nd the tax on children too - sod this give people MORE money to have kids - CHARGE them for having kids I say!! Lol
smile.gif
 
Does anyone understand me when I say I can afford my horses but not really the tax.

I have an account for the horses in which i transfer enough in to pay for insurance, rent feed etc plus a lil extra that builds up a reserve for insurance excess, rugs etc.

If I was to take £200 pounds out of this it would really set me back if I need to pay vet bill etc. As I would physically not being getting anything that would be benefitting them.

My horses are kept on a budget but the are healthy happy and have what they need, so I don't think that just becuase I cant afford to fork out £200 that I cant afford to keep them,
 
If we knew that the tax would be spent on keeping our animals safe from these diseases, I would have no problem paying it. Imagine the research which could be funded from 1 year's payments? But - Exactly how much of your road tax goes on keeping the roads in a fit stae for you to drive on? Not a lot. Same goes for the taxes on petrol and diesel.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Feeding horses is a luxury. Feeding yourself and your family is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well it bl**dy should be. Breed as many kids as you like, and the horse owners can pay to fund their "human rights" with the money they've earned while the breeders are on maternity leave (funded by us!). Peevs me right off, want babies and you get handouts left right and centre, try to earn and spend your own wages on what you want, and you get taxed three times!
mad.gif
 
can I instead say that I am not aware of any immediate danger to dogs from exotic diseases then
grin.gif


problem solved then, kiddie tax fine by me
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


Feeding horses is a luxury. Feeding yourself and your family is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that having children is a luxury - it is not essential in order to live.
 
I think this has gone a little off-topic. I for one am a bit peeved by the OP.

I am SKINT! I have a low-paying job and don't ever have money for clothes haircuts etc. Now I am not moaning, I understand that it is MY choice to have horses and they are indeed a luxury that I feel very lucky to have.

If they need vet attention, I find the money, usually by paying in installments. However, I am on a tight budget!! To me £100 per horse is alot of money. I don't think this means I shouldn't have them. The fact is, my horses want for nothing, they have the best feed, shoeing, vets etc. BUT adding £200 to my running costs per year actually makes a huge amount of difference.

Incidentally, both my horses were bought for £1 from people who had ALOT more money than me. The care and attention they receive now is a hundred times better than their old owners and they are happy healthy horses.
 
Whilst I agree that generally if you have a horse you should have enough slack in your budget to find £100 a year (£1.90 a week so less than a sunday paper) as you need to budget for contingencies I think it could bring some to the tipping point where they can no longer afford to keep their horse. Faor enough if you can sell it but what about those who can't?

Imagine someone as an adult in a well paid job buys themself a nice tidy sport horse/warmblood. They ride for perhaps ten or more years with this same horse, affording it each year then it starts to get a bit old and isn't really up to much more than light hacking. Around the same time through no fault of their own they loose the well paid job and can only get low paid work. They are really struggling financially but are aware that big and old horses don't sell well, worse theirs has a few quirks and isn't suitable for a novice. So they juggle things to enable to afford it, cutting all non essentials to the bone and have the horse at grass, using all their spare cash to fund the horse that has served them well all these years, even going without themselves. A few years pass, the horse gets a little more arthritic feed prices increase further and then the horse tax comes along. Another £100 to find on a very tight budget. Just as a big vet bill may have meant the end for this horse maybe the horse tax will. You certainly can't sell it, especially not as the demand for companions will have gone through the floor.

I can see many horses being PTS or abandoned as a result of this tax, people aren't going to want to pay tax for an old or lame horse.

I can also see it being a problem for some of our rare breeds. If breeders are feeling the pinch they won't breed as many youngsters.

Of course the welfare case horses and the travellers won't pay either.

The charities will be under more pressure too.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Feeding horses is a luxury. Feeding yourself and your family is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well it bl**dy should be. Breed as many kids as you like, and the horse owners can pay to fund their "human rights" with the money they've earned while the breeders are on maternity leave (funded by us!). Peevs me right off, want babies and you get handouts left right and centre, try to earn and spend your own wages on what you want, and you get taxed three times!
mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree Flame_!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Feeding horses is a luxury. Feeding yourself and your family is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well it bl**dy should be. Breed as many kids as you like, and the horse owners can pay to fund their "human rights" with the money they've earned while the breeders are on maternity leave (funded by us!). Peevs me right off, want babies and you get handouts left right and centre, try to earn and spend your own wages on what you want, and you get taxed three times!
mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]


Ummm...totally off topic here....I have 2 children. I have never been given any money...certainly not left , right OR centre. I think you will find that to be on maternity leave you have to have a job to be on leave from....which implies that you pay taxes too.....maternity pay is crap and lasts only a few weeks...I was on unpaid leave for a year each time and used savings to pay the mortgage and bills.

I think you are referring to the 'stay at home lets have kids for the benefits' brigade....which pees me no end too.
 
Acouple of points
1) dont you think this could be a ploy by defra about the £100 so when they come back and say oh no it
will be £20 we will all be so glad we will pay up without fuss
2) as with all taxes this will probable go up every year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top