So says my bank.
It comes as a bit of a shock. Why wouldn't it? Consider the following facts:
I am not (yet) dependent on my children and manage my affairs on my own - grocery shopping, travelling, driving oneself here and there, buying railway tickets and generally doing everything that constitutes day-to-day life.
I even, for the most part, manage my technological needs and activities on my own. Last week I even de-fragged - successfully, I might add - my desktop which my wife uses as her sole indulgence in modern technology and which I fill with all sorts of junk thus slowing it down. I have even partitioned the drive and moved some heavy files to a new partition, not to mention jail breaking a hand-me-down iPhone.
My claim of independence from children is not meant in any way to belittle the value of the daily long distance calls from my daughter - the daily exchange of life's trivia provides much entertainment to both parties and acts in addition as her stress-buster.
I have paid taxes for longer than most people have jobs these days, and continue to do so. I have paid more in taxes over the last couple of decades than most people earned in that period. I have never cheated on taxes notwithstanding my new-found enthusiasm for feeding the government as little as legally possible - it has as much to do with my views on where my money should go but does not, as with the simple arithmetic of income and expenditure. But I still pay as taxes sums far higher than any politician with assets hundred times greater than mine. In short, I would expect the government to consider me an asset.
I do not depend on the society to provide me free anything - no free TV, no free laptop, no subsidised education, housing, health care, nothing. I do admit to using subsidised domestic fuel for which I am willing to pay the full price whenever it is demanded. I also am not a burden on the public transport system. I am guilty of using the public roads but isn't that covered by my taxes? I have stubbornly resisted the urge to acquire a diesel-powered car in order to benefit from the subsidised prices of that fuel. In sum, no freebies for me.
Never received any favours from the government - in fact was denied what was rightfully mine, which led me to desert the hostile (to me) academic shores of Madras and seek my fortunes elsewhere.
I do not get a pension from the Government or any of the entities owned or controlled by it.
I have never borrowed from my bank. Nor ever defaulted on a loan.
Why then does my bank insist on calling me a "liability" and Vijay Mallya an asset?
It comes as a bit of a shock. Why wouldn't it? Consider the following facts:
I am not (yet) dependent on my children and manage my affairs on my own - grocery shopping, travelling, driving oneself here and there, buying railway tickets and generally doing everything that constitutes day-to-day life.
I even, for the most part, manage my technological needs and activities on my own. Last week I even de-fragged - successfully, I might add - my desktop which my wife uses as her sole indulgence in modern technology and which I fill with all sorts of junk thus slowing it down. I have even partitioned the drive and moved some heavy files to a new partition, not to mention jail breaking a hand-me-down iPhone.
My claim of independence from children is not meant in any way to belittle the value of the daily long distance calls from my daughter - the daily exchange of life's trivia provides much entertainment to both parties and acts in addition as her stress-buster.
I have paid taxes for longer than most people have jobs these days, and continue to do so. I have paid more in taxes over the last couple of decades than most people earned in that period. I have never cheated on taxes notwithstanding my new-found enthusiasm for feeding the government as little as legally possible - it has as much to do with my views on where my money should go but does not, as with the simple arithmetic of income and expenditure. But I still pay as taxes sums far higher than any politician with assets hundred times greater than mine. In short, I would expect the government to consider me an asset.
I do not depend on the society to provide me free anything - no free TV, no free laptop, no subsidised education, housing, health care, nothing. I do admit to using subsidised domestic fuel for which I am willing to pay the full price whenever it is demanded. I also am not a burden on the public transport system. I am guilty of using the public roads but isn't that covered by my taxes? I have stubbornly resisted the urge to acquire a diesel-powered car in order to benefit from the subsidised prices of that fuel. In sum, no freebies for me.
Never received any favours from the government - in fact was denied what was rightfully mine, which led me to desert the hostile (to me) academic shores of Madras and seek my fortunes elsewhere.
I do not get a pension from the Government or any of the entities owned or controlled by it.
I have never borrowed from my bank. Nor ever defaulted on a loan.
Why then does my bank insist on calling me a "liability" and Vijay Mallya an asset?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.