Fiscal responsibility is an important part of being an owner. However, fiscal responsibility does -not- mean being rich, and it makes sense to me that individuals in a household would all contribute to the general well-being of that household.
It is important to look at the background behind a particular situation. Waste, carelessness with money, inability to budget, and a frivolous attitude towards finances are not things that would lend themselves to the responsibilities of taking care of another human being -- I don't care if one is considering a servant, a child or a spouse.
At the same time, circumstances happen. Perhaps an individual is in debt because he or she is paying for school, and did not qualify for financial assistance so is paying it off over time on his or her own. Perhaps there are medical expenses not covered by insurance. Perhaps there was a business that didn't pan out, and rather than file bankruptcy, the individual is taking responsibility and paying off the debts incurred.
It is a nice goal to look for that place where money becomes a non-issue, but finances are energy, and are fluid. What is crucial is whether or not the individual has a right relationship with money energy. Is he or she aware of responsibilities, careful to manage those as best possible, is any financial stress temporary and is the proper diligence being applied to resolve the matter, and is the dominant willing to be honest and frank about his or her financial situation?
Everyone in our household is expected to contribute to the household. All of us work -- and a the moment, all of us work outside of our main domicile. We don't see that changing for us any time soon, and frankly, I see myself working in my field of choice (pastoral care/life guidance and lecturing on relationship and alternative lifestyle issues) until the day that I keel over dead, with a huge smile on my face as my life work absorbed me for all of my days. Lady SilverRose is also looking forward to the opportunity to work as a homeopath for the rest of -her- days. We are fiscally responsible, but are not, and may never be, wealthy. However, we have an outstanding relationship with money, and understand the responsibilities of fiscal management. No-one in our care will go hungry or without shelter. If we were worried about those things, we would certainly not want to take on additional responsibilities, and while things may be tight at times for us, there is never a question as to whether needs will be able to be met -- even if the occasional luxury or extra might not happen. We are also somewhat "minimalist", and prefer to live frugally now, even though it might not look as attractive and we may not have the fancy house/apartment and flashing "things" that entice so many, while we save and prepare for the things we really -do- want (right now, we are saving for a new house, and have specific requirements including a kitchen where I can do the cooking that I so love, and a separate office for SilverRose and myself where we can see clients in peace and comfort, and in an atmosphere that promotes healing.) In exchange, we are living frugally, because truthfully, we would prefer to save, live cautiously and without frills, and be able to find just the right place on the best possible terms -- terms that we helped shape by our own efforts and responsbilities.
If a dominant is willing to be forthright, and is clear about his or her fiscal situation -- and is in the position to be able to bear the weight of another mouth to feed, another responsibility to manage, and another fiscal "string" to weave into the family's web, then I don't think that the -amount- of money should be a consideration.
I’ll agree that this is an ideal scenario for sub/slaves to enter into as it indicates the possibility of greater security which may be what they require especially if they have been through the mill financially. What about the other end of the spectrum then?
The Dominants with little income who live on the financial edge or have little money to play with?
Those who sometimes (usually dependent on bill time) have to scrimp and scrape to pay the bills and have money left over for food?
In their situation as long as they are not about to be made homeless, should they be cast aside by the majority of the lifestyle?
Do their character, experience and good name as a sensible and safe Dominant count for nothing?
In other words, is there a financial level in which we as a lifestyle turn our backs and try to forget that they exist?
What say you Dominants and what say you sub/slaves?
< Message edited by LadiesBladewing -- 1/29/2006 5:52:17 AM >
"Should have", "could have", "would have" and "can't" may be the most dangerous phrases in the English language.