There is a proposed ordinance to tax pet owners depending on the number of their pets. That is to implement a stricter control of pets because smuggling of exotic pets are getting to be prevalent and the spread of rabies is also an issue due to the stray dogs in every corner. Pet owners cannot do anything although we all think that it is unfair and uncalled for. Our solution to rabies is to impound stray dogs and other animals. With the smuggling of exotic animals, it is the job of another government agency.
Sometimes laws are created that do not fit those affected. Our idea now is for the local government to earn money thru that tax on pets. And what would they do with the collected taxes? It's not for me to argue, I just want to express my opposition to that motion.
I don't think it is fair to levy a tax on all pet owners when exotic pets are the problem. You could try to petition against it if it is a problem. A more practical tax would be exclusively for exotic and wild pets. The law ignores the fact that most pet owners already pay a pet tax in the form of pet rent.
I completely support having a tax on poisonous pets and wild animals. Unless you are raising the animals to harvest venom for anti-venom, trying to save an endangered species, or just giving a home to old retired animals from Hollywood some animals shouldn't be kept as pets. The pet tax should also be applied to animals that aren't native to cover the cost it might cost if they get out and breed.
