More than ten million South Koreans now know the warm joy of being greeted by a tail-wagging furry little friend at the end of the day. As an ever-increasing portion of the Korean population continues to adopt new pets, some advocates are contending for an implementation of a pet tax. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs outlined in a 2022 report that they are open to the possibility of annually levying a certain financial toll on pet owners and employing the funds in national pet care systems. According to a 2022 national survey by The Seoul Shinmun Daily, 56 percent of the population agree with the decision.

Proponents of the pet tax proclaim it would heighten general responsibility among pet owners, especially when considering the high rate of abandoned pets and casualties of aggressive dog behavior. By linking pet ownership to pecuniary responsibility, it is hoped that owners will assume overall increased responsibility for their animals. Opponents of the tax have mostly brought up problems of implementation. Foremost, pet owners are already indirectly paying taxes through VATs applied on hospital fees and other pet products. Additionally, some are concerned that there might be a temporary surge in abandoned animals immediately following the implementation of the policy.

One can logically contend, however, that the enumerated woes are merely those that arise from a transitory period. The pet tax’s intended effect of fortifying the responsibility of pet ownership is a laudable one, and one may expect the policy to be adopted after adjustments. However, three complications must be resolved before contemplating its implementation.

First, there must be adequate payback addressed to pet owners in the form of national pet insurance, the closure of dilapidated pet farms, and other structural necessities for the protection of domestic animals. Taxation without return reads as a penalty, not a responsibility. If compliance is expected, there must be a detailed outline of structural benefits for pet owners available before the nation ever imposes the tax policy.

Second, the nation can no longer shy away from the ever-contentious topic of edible dog meat farms. If the nation wishes to tax dogs that are raised as pets, should dogs farmed for the purpose of consumption be taxed as pets up to the day they are sent to the slaughterhouse, or legally treated as livestock and therefore exempt? Even when leaving out the ethical dilemma of treating animals of the same species as either a subject of consumption or familial love based on their circumstances, imposing a pet tax on an animal that is dually eaten creates an awfully gray area in regulations. To clear the unavoidable confusion, the government should conclusively set its foot down in its stance toward dog meat. If it decides that the procedure remains legal, there should be no ambivalence in outlining the subjects of taxation.

Third, specific enforcement policies must be articulated. It is notable that South Korea already has policies for regulating pet behavior. Though not registering your animal to the national service is a legal transgression that is punishable by a fine of up to one million Korean won (KRW), enforcement of the policy is nearly absent due to complications in imposition. If 61.5 percent of pet owners do not register their pets despite legal measures being in place for the last eight years, what makes us think that the pet tax policy would be any different?

When regarding current circumstances, South Korea’s social, legal, and structural background indicates that is yet too crudely unfit for an efficacious implementation of the pet tax.