If inability to pay is the problem, bringing in a company that takes a cut means less money for everyone, while encouraging irresponsible lending. Couldn’t the council just have a payment plan?
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
11 points (92.3% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
2189 readers
4 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Couldn’t the council just have a payment plan?
if its like lay-away and u get the dog when u have paid, it might work, then u have the issue of care costs, so that needs to be paid as well... if it's take the dog and pay, then 99.9% are unlikely to if there's no enforcement and then how to enforce? I'd guess for the council this is the best of a bunch of shitty options.
The council have as many optipns to enforcement as afterpay.
I dont think the council should be keeping the dog. Thats the whole point of credit.
Yes, some. Options are shitry, but it seems they have chosen one of the shittiest.
The idea of the state euthanising a dog because its owner couldn't afford to pick it up from the pound makes me want to commit arson
Sigh. Kill shelters are bullshit.