People prefer pets over people

So I think the picture does all the talking. That looks like a pretty comfy bed. And it comes at the comfy price of $280 plus shipping on eBay. I don't know that many people who spend that much on their own beds although I guess that's about the price of an iPod these days. I just think it's kind of funny that there are a good number of pets out there that are living better than a whole lot of people. According to Jeffery Sach's The End of Poverty about half the world population (human, that is) lives off less than $2 a day. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who spend well over $2 a day on their pets. And they have every right to. So while their human friends on the other side of the world are dying of starvation and disease and malnourishment and thirst, at least their doggy and kitty friends have it good in their $280 plush beds. But then, I'm sure that these pets give something invaluable to their owners and so it's really the least they can do to make their furry friends feel comfortable and loved. But you really do start to wonder: What if some of that money was spent on saving people's lives?

So how about this: luxury taxes. Tax stuff like this that really seems superfluous and dare I say wasteful, but don't restrict it because that would be totalitarianism and we wouldn't want that. People who really, really want this stuff despite the higher prices should still be allowed to buy it. It'd still be a relatively free market economy. The revenue from the taxes can then be sent towards better causes like alleviating world hunger, etc. At the same time, the types of jobs that supply these markets would be less profitable because of the tax and resulting higher prices/lower profits, and so people would be discouraged from entering into this business and might consider instead other forms of employment that have a little more worth to society and humankind.

Quite naturally, this is an impossible proposition for several reasons. How much should the tax be? Do we really want to make a point or is this more of just a deterrence? Where do we draw the line? Should we tax certain kinds of pet foods as well? What's really a luxury item and what's not? And who gets to decide all this? Who gets to choose what is a luxury and what people/their pets might actually need? Because all of these questions can never be adequately answered, rich pet owners have nothing to worry about. This tax will never happen and the capital that's directed into this stuff will never end up saving any starving children or finding a cure for cancer. But that's capitalism. And that's freedom. And that's how the world works -- for now at least.