RE: Low Income Dominants.

RE: Low Income Dominants. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

LTRsubNW -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/27/2006 3:13:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster It IS true. This is stupid. Do you think I'm "richer" than someone who earned $20,000 a year in 1810 just because I earn a lot more than $20,000 a year today? Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump (who died in 1999), founded the Trump Organization and covered his son's outrageous debts and failures. Besides, NO ONE claims that Donald Trump's current net worth is $6-9 billion. Only LTRsubNW on Collarme claims that. Forbes has his net worth below $3 billion. And if you're seriously interested in the mysteries of Trump's net worth, and not just starting a pissing contest with someone who seems to know the facts a little better than you do, you might find this article very interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/business/yourmoney/23trump.html?ex=1287720000&en=f6a28aab39166801&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss You might find it illuminating to talk to some of Trump's creditors, too. It's really rather immaterial whether or not Trump is worth 3 billion, 6 billion or 9 billion don't you think? The issue was that (according to you) "He was born even richer than he is now". No matter how you slice it, you were wrong, you're still wrong, you'll be wrong tomorrow and you'll be wrong no matter how you continue to debate the subject. He wasn't, under any circumstances, born richer than he is today. You can use the national CPI ("Consumer Price Index"), you can use the NY state CPI and you can even use the NY City CPI as some measure that under current valuations he's worth less today than 20 some years ago. Hell, you can even use Venezuela's CPI...it still doesn't change the fact that your original premise was, and remains false. If you care to use some other measure, such as "Trump was born with a silver spoon" or "Trump was born to advantage and used it to garner his current status"... I'd agree with you. Who could debate that? Who would be foolish enough to do so? I certainly wouldn't. It would be false. However, he was not (as you've stated) born richer than he is now, nor was he born richer than his current asset value would indicate. Under any measure. I have no problem with the concept behind your statement. It's actually, to some degree, quite valid. The idea that he was given priveledge and manipulated it (quite well, I might add) to create what we all now assume about him, is fairly well known. That wasn't, however, what you said...now was it? Those that have done some reading about his past (as you appear to have) know quite well that his father gave him a significant apartment project (I believe somewhere in NY/on the island...where is equally immaterial), it was a fairly troubled project and he manipulated it during construction with his now well known finesse, (sp?) and did well enough that Dad gave him a few more opportunities to grow, to the point wherein which he was able to accumulate enough financial, as well as political, capital to push for the first project of his own where he built a 60 story property (which actually wasn't 60 stories...he simply neglected to "sign" on the elevators approx. 10 stories between 38 and 48...there weren't actually 60 stories...however, a "58 story condo" does tend to have more cache' than a 48 story condo, ergo, price...{yep...he lied}) on a rather decrepit street, not well known for much more (at the time) than drug deals and heroin addicts, petitioned the city to change the name to "The Avenue of America's", sold the top third of the building (that he built {the whole thing} for approx. 82 million dollars) as condos...for 117 million dollars (which, after commissions, advertising, etc., left him with full ownership of the remaining floors...and an approx. 14 million dollar profit {which kinda covered his taxes on the whole gig}), kept the top two floors for himself and Ivanna (which she ended up keeping years later, as you no doubt read), and in 1983 or 4 (I can't recall exactly) was left with the remaining 35+ some odd floors (the first 7 devoted to retail, the remaining devoted to office space) paid for entirely by the sales he achieved to people who ,on a global scale, unusually believed his name signified prestige and quality, charging the singularly (at the time) most expensive rents on the planet (for the retail areas...higher than Hong Kong, at the time the highest rents in the world, which as an aside, his bankers said he'd never get away with), to clients who were (and are) globally known as tenants that would survive only at the best address. (Who, by the way I should note, after 20 some years...have continued to re-sign their leases). Today that area is one of the more prosperous sections of NY, moreover it's where many of the best known developers in NY have followed Trump to manufacture significant profits, and as well, changed the tax structure to the benefit of the city many thousands of times over since the early 80's. But I digress.... I believe you were trying to suggest that you weren't ignorant. Please continue.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/27/2006 3:37:30 PM)
That would be a nice summary if you didn't neglect to include his STAGGERING LOSSES, his inability to avoid BANKRUPTCY, and his father's role in continually BAILING HIM OUT (but not his creditors, of course...). What's the purpose of this? You seem to object to a single statement I made, which is that Trump was born richer than he is today. I stand by that statement, because I don't measure wealth by net worth alone. He would have inherited more money from his father if he had become a butterfly-catcher instead of investing (and losing) fabulous sums in real estate. That's what that statement means, and a little bit of creativity on your part might have aided in your understanding. If you're such a stickler for factual accuracy, I hardly think it's immaterial whether his net worth is $3 billion, $6 billion, or $9 billion, though in fact I believe it's less than $1 billion. There's a pending lawsuit about that... quote: ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW Those that have done some reading about his past know quite well that his father gave him a significant apartment project (I believe somewhere in NY/on the island), it was a fairly troubled project and he manipulated it during construction with his now well known finese, (sp?) and did well enough that Dad gave him several more opportunities, to the point wherein which he was able to accumulate enough financial as well as political capital to push for the first project of his own where he built a 60 story property on a rather decrepit street not well known for much more than drug deals and heroin addicts, petitioned the city to change the name to "The Avenue of America's", sold the top third of the building (that he built for approx. 82 million dollars) as condos (for 117 million dollars), kept the top two floors for himself and Ivanna (and of course, the kids), and in 1983 or 4 (I can't recall exactly) was left with the remaining some odd 35+ floors (the first 7 devoted to retail, the remaining devoted to office space) paid for entirely by the sales he achieved to people who on a global scale, unusually believed his name signified prestige and quality, charging the singularly (at the time) most expensive rents on the planet (higher than Hong Kong, at the time the highest rents in the world, which by the way, his bankers said he'd never get away with), to clients who are globally known as tenants that would only survive at the best address.

LTRsubNW -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/27/2006 3:58:29 PM)
Well then, considering you've already argued that facts aren't pertinent to your discussion, I believe you've made your case. quote: "What's the purpose of this? ...Trump was born richer than he is today. I stand by that statement, because I don't measure wealth by net worth alone." My error, I was under the (obviously incorrect) assumption that you were measuring someones previous net worth against their current net worth, less accumulated inflation losses, calculated in U.S. dollars. Clearly I was thinking in some other economic measure (you know...like bankers and investors and such). My bad.

LTRsubNW -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/27/2006 4:11:15 PM)
Error...double post. (See above)

LordDarkPleasure -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/27/2006 4:56:01 PM)
Well despite everything you guys say, even if personnality, intelligence, humor and all those nice things are what makes you stick with a person, money for guys, just like beauty for girls is often needed if you want to have a chance to show these qualities in the first place. In at least 2 occasions I could see a recently met girl's eyes sparkle when I mentionned being an engineer and then see that sparkle disappear when I mentionned I hadn't finished my studies for another year. I can also tell you that besides one exception, I didn't get any messages on collarme except for people congratulating my picture or telling me the texts in my journal entry are funny. I should make a test and check the regularity of messages I get if I type that I got my job as engineer....

LTRsubNW -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/27/2006 5:06:29 PM)
It's true LordDark...women prefer (all things being equal) a man that does well in life, as opposed to one who doesn't. It's equally true that women (in general...until they reach an age where they know better lol) will choose a shallow stunning looking man over a deeply resolute man who's average. Go figure. Suddenly my phone requires reservations. (Thank you Jesus for making me average). Until a certain age (see above), most men will choose a Pamela Anderson type over (pick the type you've avoided since childhood), and so the churn continues. If that's your picture in your profile, be glad you're one of the ones who might get a call from GQ magazine. Besides...you're 23...chill, enjoy...and call a few of us that aren't 23 anymore...(we'll tell you a few secrets). Enjoy.

LordDarkPleasure -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/27/2006 10:57:58 PM)
no what I was stating is that people have some standards related to money and/or where they wont date someone unless they are rich or pretty/handsome to a certain degree. About the age thanks for noticing, I am a bit older now ;) I'll be 25 next month

MissdeSade -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/30/2006 11:06:08 AM)
Interesting question, but I'd have to say it applies to a lot of professions--particularly artistic ones. I say that as long as no one is being put in danger or being unhealthy, no one should turn their back on them. If a Domme has a sub that they can't care for, that is irresponsible, but otherwise, it seems like money shouldn't be an issue for judging character.

marksl -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (7/30/2006 1:20:57 PM)
I dont know this about Doms but my relationships with Dommes proved to me one thing bdsm is a confusing mess some lived with their mothers they had kids, they lived off their ex husband some become trophy wifes to get out of the poverty trap on the opposite scale some also were professionals who had good incomes. Now ironicly the women living with their mother were the most dominate people i met they were dealing with what life gave them. They survived best way they could. How they did it could be described as many things.

DK -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 2:46:38 AM)
It depends on what is important to you. For myself, there is the balance of who the person is, what experiences in life they've had, and the choices they've made in their life. Who they are and the choices they've made in their life is more important to me than if they've focussed on being financially stable. I was never raised to be materialistic nor focus on money, but rather to learn, grow, and challange myself. At this point, I continue to balance my morality, my ability to enjoy life, and the responsibilities of living that cost money. If I met someone without money, whether Dominant or submissive, I would want to know more about them before I made any assumptions of why they didn't have money. I think the issue is more whether both parties views are similar on money, rather than if someone has it or not. If having money is vital, or money is helpful to do things, or life rather than money - all are different views on money and it's role in one's life and if that matches with your partner seems crucial to me. They say in divorces, the biggest issue is how the partners disagree on how to manage their money, and I think that relates to any serious relationship.

mons -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 3:45:54 AM)
*greeting to all* i find that the life is full with out all of the trapping people wish for i remember my pastor said on sunday morning many black folks will come to church dress to the nines and i with my not so desinger clothes , some would say hello other would not. but he said " i see all are dress so well this sunday and everyone all looked around and then he said " but how many of you are living out of your car just to have that car and that dress . yes so many smiles came off of their faces the ones who know they did live out of their care just to dress in that 1000 dollar dress or those 200 dollear pair of shoes it was a laugh then i know i was so proud i was there for pray not for show i have my honor and proud for who i was and what i truly was so proud of i do not care if my submissive has little i do not care of money i care if he is not a liar or a theif i care he is honor bound in all he does. walking is fun and with the one you love it is a blessing to be with that person and if i choose to be with master who has less then all that matter is he honor *mons*

meatcleaver -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 3:55:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordDarkPleasure Well despite everything you guys say, even if personnality, intelligence, humor and all those nice things are what makes you stick with a person, money for guys, just like beauty for girls is often needed if you want to have a chance to show these qualities in the first place. In at least 2 occasions I could see a recently met girl's eyes sparkle when I mentionned being an engineer and then see that sparkle disappear when I mentionned I hadn't finished my studies for another year. Anyone who says women are not attracted to money are not being honest. The last time I was in England my brother lent me a Jaguar XR (I don't own a car and he is a luxury car dealer) so I could drive up to a popular pub on the moors to meet a friend. Now I don't think I'm bad for my age but I know if I trundled up there on my bike I wouldn't stand a chance with a rather beautiful 25 year old, even if she was rather a air head. The stink of money attracts young women like bees round a honey pot. The sad thing is, I think she would have performed all sorts of sexual acrobatics because she thought the car indicated my wealth. She was almost undressing in public for me.

NakedGirlScout -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 4:14:27 AM)
Late reply to a post made in January! but felt compelled to say something... As long as both the people in the couple aren't about to be made homeless, I don't think it matters who makes the money. Apart from that, someone has to be a fair wage earner because it's no fun living under a bridge grin.

Skald -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 8:54:37 AM)
Not everyone is going to be able to get a job that is $100k+/yr with full benefits and normal hours. The cost of living in the U.S, as well as other countries, is only getting higher and higher. Sadly, I am one of those 'poor' Dominants due to medical problems well beyond my control. One thing that I believe that sets me apart from others who are on Disability is I am actively striving to get off of it.Using Medicare to fix what ails me. Using all the resources under State and Federal disability programs to get back in the work force, and getting a better job that pays a lot better than I had before and gives me a lot more time to enjoy her than I would have. A bank account does not show anyone the kind of person I am. It shows what the viewer wants to see. I could have a high balance and yet be a miser, not spending a penny unless justified. Or I could have a low balance and show responsibility and just paid in cash for a two week getaway to some exotic local with my slave for some alone time with her far from the stresses of every day life. I forgot who said it, but the thing everyone should pay attention to is responsibility than security. Like any kind of well, even the supply of money can dry up suddenly and without warning.

abbey7uk -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 8:56:33 AM)
Surely it's the richnes of mind that counts, a good imagination is way more important the money. You can be rich with every toy/security going but still be a f***wit. It ain't what you got it's how you use it. TTFN Abbey

Rayne58 -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 6:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skald Not everyone is going to be able to get a job that is $100k+/yr with full benefits and normal hours. The cost of living in the U.S, as well as other countries, is only getting higher and higher. Sadly, I am one of those 'poor' Dominants due to medical problems well beyond my control. One thing that I believe that sets me apart from others who are on Disability is I am actively striving to get off of it.Using Medicare to fix what ails me. Using all the resources under State and Federal disability programs to get back in the work force, and getting a better job that pays a lot better than I had before and gives me a lot more time to enjoy her than I would have. A bank account does not show anyone the kind of person I am. It shows what the viewer wants to see. I could have a high balance and yet be a miser, not spending a penny unless justified. Or I could have a low balance and show responsibility and just paid in cash for a two week getaway to some exotic local with my slave for some alone time with her far from the stresses of every day life. I forgot who said it, but the thing everyone should pay attention to is responsibility than security. Like any kind of well, even the supply of money can dry up suddenly and without warning. Good luck to you Skald [:)] Unfortunately my Master cannot be fixed, even a kidney transplant has been ruled out as He has too many other complications. However He has quit smoking so we now have an extra $60 a week in the kitty. It is making the difference between just scraping by and being able to afford a few little luxuries.

DoctorDubious -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 8:12:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear [ Soooo, you would *fix a minimal income level* for all Dominants and those who didn't pass you would kick them out from the lifestyle.... Yes? Greetings all wealthy doms, regardless of income.... Who could possibly be wealthier than a man who owned the loving, surrendered soul and everyday had her at his feet, looking up with adoring eyes at her Master? I mean... really! >>*fix a minimal income level* Now, about this business of fixing minimal income levels. Today, August 14th, on the front page of the LA Times, there was a story about subsidized housing for Santa Barbara residents. Guess what the income limit was? $160,000.00 So, it seems to me that "low income" is either a pretty fluid term... or else the fixers in Santa Barbara are trying to pull a fast one and get their buddies some cheap and easy government money. DD, a cynical old goat

SirHedonicsslave -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 8:53:54 PM)
i wanna be THAT low income....i'll volunteer to be one of the poor in Santa Barbara.... maybe we could get a whole group of us to volunteer to be among the "poor" there, that way we could all be poor together. Oh...wait...does that subsidized housing have a pool, rec room, spa....maybe even a hair stylist (so we can all look our best when we go out looking for a job to get out of the subsidized housing). I mean...anything less would be inhumane conditions [sm=mrpuffy.gif] I dunno, guess i'm strange, cause the thing that i would ask when i was looking was "Do you have a means to support yourself?"....i didn't care if it was a disability check or a $200K a year job....it was just the fact that i worked hard every day (seven 24 hour shifts every 14 days) to support myself and family...and there were days i probably shouldn't have been working (like being 38 weeks along and start feeling labor pains while taking care of a patient in the back of the ambulance going 90 MPH)...but i did it, because that was my responsibility. It always surprised me the number of "Dominants" that thought i would take them on and support them....i don't mind working, i really enjoyed it....but i just always believed it should be a joint effort. It doesn't matter whether you make a million a year being some rock star's person doctor.....or if you're stuffing envelopes for minimum wage....the point is, you're doing SOMETHING to contribute to the home. SirHedonics slave

Homestead -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/14/2006 9:05:04 PM)
It's rare for a poor man to have the power to overcome the female nesting instinct that we are compared by.

Windygal -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (8/26/2006 3:41:07 PM)
hello A/all, I am interested int his topic as I work for a non-profit agency, and by My salary is REALLY non-profit LOL Anyway, the work is worth doing, but I meet subs all the time who have double and tripe My income and I wonder what they think Windygal

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875