2008/11/18 by INGRID H. TAGUE, Ingrid H. Tague · 1 citation
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Medicine · Social Sciences · #Ad valorem tax #Direct tax #Economics #Geographies of human-animal interactions #Human-Animal Interaction Studies #Indirect tax #Law and economics #Medicine #Political science #Population #Public economics #Tax avoidance #Tax reform
paper · doi:10.1017/s0018246x08007127
openalex publication_date 2008/11/18 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
ABSTRACT A tax on dogs was passed in 1796 because it seemed to address both the government's need for revenue and other serious social and economic problems. Arguments for and against a dog tax throughout the eighteenth century engaged with issues not raised in discussions of other kinds of taxes because of the unique place of dogs in human society; positions on the question of a dog tax depended largely on assumptions about the purpose that dogs served, or ought to serve. Proponents often argued that a dog tax would decrease the population of nuisance dogs, whilst also preventing poaching. Other tax advocates presented a dog tax as a luxury tax, but there was no agreement about which kinds of dogs were luxuries, and which were necessities that should be exempt from the tax. By the time a bill was debated in parliament in 1796, the terms of the debate had shifted because of new attitudes toward animals. The tax that was ultimately passed largely ignored the interests of the primary advocates of a tax throughout the century, instead treating the pets of the poor as necessities that merited exemption.