Dog licences - UK
Author
Discussion

S47

Original Poster:

1,351 posts

198 months

I'm Surprised the Government are missing an opportunity to raise Money by not re-introducing the DOG Licence which they scrapped in 1980's :? it would now be easy to collect since all dogs have a chip etc, with owners name and address. particularly vicious dogs could be charged more, and useless 'Kick' /handbag dogs the mostsmile They could add on Public liabilty insurance at the same time - seems like a great idea to me;) I'd certainly vote for the party who did, there are far too many irresponsible owners IMO, owning a dog costs Zilch - zippo what does everyone think about this?

Doofus

31,818 posts

191 months

S47 said:
I'm Surprised the Government are missing an opportunity to raise Money by not re-introducing the DOG Licence which they scrapped in 1980's :? it would now be easy to collect since all dogs have a chip etc, with owners name and address. particularly vicious dogs could be charged more, and useless 'Kick' /handbag dogs the mostsmile They could add on Public liabilty insurance at the same time - seems like a great idea to me;) I'd certainly vote for the party who did, there are far too many irresponsible owners IMO, owning a dog costs Zilch - zippo what does everyone think about this?
Not all dogs have chips.

moorx

4,278 posts

132 months

I have pet insurance for my dogs, I have public liability insurance for my dogs, I pay my own vet bills for my dogs, I have my own land on which I exercise my dogs.

What do my dogs cost the public purse that I should be paying for exactly?

hotchy

4,735 posts

144 months

Dog owners spend estimated 16.9b a year in the country. Why risk that large tax take for such a stupid thing?

RustyNissanPrairie

332 posts

13 months

File alongside 'registration plates for bicycles' - it would cost more to administer than it would generate.

Blue_star

279 posts

34 months

I only support because near me there is areas where xl bullies constantly rip kids into pieces. So if you tax the crap out of certain breeds you can reduce the number of accidents.

I expect free poo bags in every park tough

oddman

3,409 posts

270 months

IIRC it was scrapped because enforcement costs outweighed any revenue.

Jamescrs

5,545 posts

83 months

Blue_star said:
I only support because near me there is areas where xl bullies constantly rip kids into pieces. So if you tax the crap out of certain breeds you can reduce the number of accidents.

I expect free poo bags in every park tough
You have to consider a lot of these dogs are bred in backyards and wouldn't be officially registered, cross breeding would go on to avoid paying licence fees and enforcement would be very expensive and time consuming so as a means of raising funds it would be counter productive

moorx

4,278 posts

132 months

Jamescrs said:
Blue_star said:
I only support because near me there is areas where xl bullies constantly rip kids into pieces. So if you tax the crap out of certain breeds you can reduce the number of accidents.

I expect free poo bags in every park tough
You have to consider a lot of these dogs are bred in backyards and wouldn't be officially registered, cross breeding would go on to avoid paying licence fees and enforcement would be very expensive and time consuming so as a means of raising funds it would be counter productive
Indeed. The argument that it would deter irresponsible dog ownership holds no water. It would just be something else to penalise responsible owners/people.

If you have any doubt, look at how effective requiring driving licence and vehicle tax for every driver is.

Blue_star

279 posts

34 months

Jamescrs said:
Blue_star said:
I only support because near me there is areas where xl bullies constantly rip kids into pieces. So if you tax the crap out of certain breeds you can reduce the number of accidents.

I expect free poo bags in every park tough
You have to consider a lot of these dogs are bred in backyards and wouldn't be officially registered, cross breeding would go on to avoid paying licence fees and enforcement would be very expensive and time consuming so as a means of raising funds it would be counter productive
To be honest being expensive is public sector excuse. Police officers have enough time to patrol through the park and check license on dog walkers. They will collect more money than their pay for the time.

Dogs shouldnt be in the backyard all the time. Cross breeding - fine but the locense wont drop too much from £1k lets say. Wont be half of it

WrekinCrew

5,273 posts

168 months

Doofus said:
Not all dogs have chips.
They have been been mandatory since 2016. Are there (legal) exceptions?

Doofus

31,818 posts

191 months

WrekinCrew said:
Doofus said:
Not all dogs have chips.
They have been been mandatory since 2016. Are there (legal) exceptions?
I know they are mandatory, but not all dogs have them.

Some people don't do as they are told, you know.

WrekinCrew

5,273 posts

168 months

Doofus said:
WrekinCrew said:
Doofus said:
Not all dogs have chips.
They have been been mandatory since 2016. Are there (legal) exceptions?
I know they are mandatory, but not all dogs have them.

Some people don't do as they are told, you know.
Yes but I would assume people who don't chip their dogs wouldn't by a licence either, so it isn't a reason not to.

Doofus

31,818 posts

191 months

WrekinCrew said:
Doofus said:
WrekinCrew said:
Doofus said:
Not all dogs have chips.
They have been been mandatory since 2016. Are there (legal) exceptions?
I know they are mandatory, but not all dogs have them.

Some people don't do as they are told, you know.
Yes but I would assume people who don't chip their dogs wouldn't by a licence either, so it isn't a reason not to.
Precisely my point.

GliderRider

2,817 posts

99 months

Does anyone have a picture of the BBC 'Nationwide' programme's April Fool from the 60s or 70s, in which they had 'Dog Licence Detector Van' with a rotating bone-shaped aerial on the roof?

abzmike

10,690 posts

124 months

Problem dog owners would ignore any regulations, just like they do now.

S47

Original Poster:

1,351 posts

198 months

I remember when we owned a dog 1960's-70's maybe the licence cost 12/6p or thereabouts wages at the time for most people were £4-5/week so licence cost a fair % of weekly wage. when dog licence was abolished in1986 i think the licence cost about the same 75p i believe so at the time it was worth abolishing it to save gov't money - if however the licence fee had risen with inflation between 1960's -1980's i reckon it should have cost maybe £25-30 when abolished in 1986 - wages then were £120-150/week. then maybe the governmant would not have abolisheed it- Anyone know why there was never any increases in the dog licence fees back then?
>
Were the govt to re-introduce dog licence's with inflation the licence ought to cost at least £100-150 / dog - Don't know how many dogs are in UK say 1 million so £100 x 1 million =£100million quid/year for HM treasury, Even putting 'SIR' nobody in charge and giving him/her a small team there has to be a profit for HM gov't and that B4 they force you to have Public Liability Ins for the dog - where they take a % of the insurance fee.
>
Another gov't earner would be for anyone who wanted to own a dog to have to pass a 'test' to prove their competance - clearly today most dog owners don't have any idea about dog control etc etc.
Just my thoughts the government seem to tax whatever they can get away with - wonder why dog owners have avoided their wrath for so long???

Doofus

31,818 posts

191 months

S47 said:
Were the govt to re-introduce dog licence's with inflation the licence ought to cost at least £100-150 / dog - Don't know how many dogs are in UK say 1 million so £100 x 1 million =£100million quid/year for HM treasury, Even putting 'SIR' nobody in charge and giving him/her a small team there has to be a profit for HM gov't and that B4 they force you to have Public Liability Ins for the dog - where they take a % of the insurance fee.
You're bonkers. The government take a percentage of the insurance premiums? From whom? And why, given they're already making £100m per year (less the thirty grand Dog Licence Manager's salary)?


Simpo Two

89,817 posts

283 months

Yesterday (09:17)
quotequote all
hotchy said:
Dog owners spend estimated 16.9b a year in the country. Why risk that large tax take for such a stupid thing?
You mean that if dog licences were re-introduced they would all leave the country? That seems unlikely. Motorists continually get taxed and fined into oblivion and they haven't all emigrated yet.