You can find some fantastic tips on how to go about find a house for rent in Bangalore here:
http://merelafz.blogspot.com/2008/09/renting-house-in-bangalore.html
One point not mentioned in that post is that the rental agreement may have some fine print about the rent. For example, the owner may mention verbally that the rent would be Rs. 10000, but the agreement may mention something like "Rs. 5000 as rent of the premises and Rs. 5000 as rent for fittings". Do not fall for this trick. It is true that you would pay the same amount each month, but what eventually happens is that only the Rs. 5000 qualifies as HRA for tax exemption. This implies that, you are paying upto Rs. 1500 (if you reach the tax slab of 30%) as tax on the money that would otherwise have qualified as your house rent. The IT department do not lose (actually, they stand to gain), as the tenants usually fall under a higher tax bracket than the house owner (or at least the house owners who are involved in this kind of mischief). Of course, there is a rule to prevent double taxation, but going by the agreement, this amount never qualified as rent, so the rule does not apply.
This practice might have started with good intentions, where owners might have "fitted" some extras which they got for rent, and the tenant agreed to pay for those fittings over and above the rent. Naturally, in those circumstances, the landlord would pass on the "rent for the fittings" part to wherever it is brought from. Things may also be relaxed a bit, where the landlord makes an initial investment, and uses this additional amount towards recovering it. Think of installing an air conditioner, for example. A tenant might ask for it, but might not want to buy it. So, the solution is for the landlord to buy it and recover additional amount from the tenant.
One may suggest that this additional amount could have been part of the actual rent itself, just like what happens for furnished houses, but in that case, the tax liability of the landlord increases. Hence, this clause in the agreement. This practice, however, has now been dragged to the level of dishonesty, and the clause exists for the simple reason that the landlord pushes his tax liability to the tenant. So much so that the only fittings the first house I had taken on rent in Bangalore had were for lights, fans, curtain rods, and the commode. That is, there was nothing that should not be in a house by default. Yet, this clause was included in the agreement, and I had foolishly accepted it (I did ask about why the breakup was mentioned, but the smart reply was that "this is standard in Bangalore"). I realized only much later, when the finance guys in my company cut down my HRA amount to be considered, that I had celebrated too early on finding a "reasonably priced" house in Bangalore.
In conclusion, if you find some fancy stuff in your rental agreement, be sure to take it up with the house owner and get it rectified before you sign it.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Burning is so not green :)
Why was that pastor planning on burning books considered holy by some. That is so not green, and it's not even winter yet for that big bonfire in Gainesville to make any sense. ;) The event seems to have been postponed for now, but here are some thoughts around that.
Instead of burning the books, he should try selling those 50 copies for an exorbitant price citing that they are very rare. "These are the very copies that were planned to be burnt." :) I am sure there would be enough number of such people who, when the right chords are touched, would buy these copies purely out of sentiments.
Thinking of sentiments, why were people in India and other countries protesting? What were they protesting? I am sure they got to know of this event only through the media, which had also reported that people elsewhere, including in the USA, were objecting to the planned event. True, some people felt outraged at even the thought of their holy book being burnt, but is this the correct way of expressing that anguish?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100909/wl_sthasia_afp/indiausattacksreligionislam_20100909165811
PC's comments are themselves uncalled for. What irks me most is that some people burnt the US flag in protest. If you cannot distinguish between the USA and a pastor of a church with 50 members, YSSCKY. What John Bloemer said
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/08/news/la-pn-boehner-koran-20100909
"Just because you have a right to do something in America doesn't mean it is the right thing to do" applies to every other country, too. If burning the Quran hurts your sentiments, burning a country's flag would hurt the sentiments of the citizens of that country. Have you got nothing better to do? Why not go to a remote village in your state and provide a tanker of water that they so desperately need, and you can put your message on the tanker.
What PC did was not that outrageous, but is blatantly politically motivated. What have you said over and above what the government of USA and its people are saying? Aren't there more burning issues at home that you had to call a meeting for this and "condemn" an event that hasn't even taken place and looked very likely to be prevented by saner people in the neighborhood? Yes, this would have law and order implications in our country, and we should prepare ourselves for that, but why interfere with a mature government that has been openly asking the pastor to refrain from conducting this event.
This kind of politically motivated interference with the actions and responsibilities of other countries is not new. If France bans the veil, why should another country ask it to reconsider its decision? This law is not discriminatory, in general. As far as people from outside France are concerned, they do not automatically get the right to visit France unless granted by the French themselves. So, if they cannot follow the rules of that country, they should stay where they are.
All this confusion arises as follows. Someone from country A moves to country B because he/she thinks country B and its government provide a better environment and living conditions. Now, when B curbs some of those liberties, usually because they were grossly misused, this person has to choose his next course of action, which should be either to continue staying in country B following their laws, or move to a different country, where again the local laws need to be followed. There is no point in complaining to the country of his origin about the new laws and asking them to open a diplomatic channel requesting B to revoke the law. What is even more annoying is that country A entertains such requests.
Just to be clear, this is entirely different from the "stoning to death" kind of incidents, where a barbaric rule might mean the end of a life, and that the person cannot choose to move to a different country. Needless to say, those are not the countries with a proper justice system where the condemned person can appeal and get a decent trial.
Instead of burning the books, he should try selling those 50 copies for an exorbitant price citing that they are very rare. "These are the very copies that were planned to be burnt." :) I am sure there would be enough number of such people who, when the right chords are touched, would buy these copies purely out of sentiments.
Thinking of sentiments, why were people in India and other countries protesting? What were they protesting? I am sure they got to know of this event only through the media, which had also reported that people elsewhere, including in the USA, were objecting to the planned event. True, some people felt outraged at even the thought of their holy book being burnt, but is this the correct way of expressing that anguish?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100909/wl_sthasia_afp/indiausattacksreligionislam_20100909165811
PC's comments are themselves uncalled for. What irks me most is that some people burnt the US flag in protest. If you cannot distinguish between the USA and a pastor of a church with 50 members, YSSCKY. What John Bloemer said
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/08/news/la-pn-boehner-koran-20100909
"Just because you have a right to do something in America doesn't mean it is the right thing to do" applies to every other country, too. If burning the Quran hurts your sentiments, burning a country's flag would hurt the sentiments of the citizens of that country. Have you got nothing better to do? Why not go to a remote village in your state and provide a tanker of water that they so desperately need, and you can put your message on the tanker.
What PC did was not that outrageous, but is blatantly politically motivated. What have you said over and above what the government of USA and its people are saying? Aren't there more burning issues at home that you had to call a meeting for this and "condemn" an event that hasn't even taken place and looked very likely to be prevented by saner people in the neighborhood? Yes, this would have law and order implications in our country, and we should prepare ourselves for that, but why interfere with a mature government that has been openly asking the pastor to refrain from conducting this event.
This kind of politically motivated interference with the actions and responsibilities of other countries is not new. If France bans the veil, why should another country ask it to reconsider its decision? This law is not discriminatory, in general. As far as people from outside France are concerned, they do not automatically get the right to visit France unless granted by the French themselves. So, if they cannot follow the rules of that country, they should stay where they are.
All this confusion arises as follows. Someone from country A moves to country B because he/she thinks country B and its government provide a better environment and living conditions. Now, when B curbs some of those liberties, usually because they were grossly misused, this person has to choose his next course of action, which should be either to continue staying in country B following their laws, or move to a different country, where again the local laws need to be followed. There is no point in complaining to the country of his origin about the new laws and asking them to open a diplomatic channel requesting B to revoke the law. What is even more annoying is that country A entertains such requests.
Just to be clear, this is entirely different from the "stoning to death" kind of incidents, where a barbaric rule might mean the end of a life, and that the person cannot choose to move to a different country. Needless to say, those are not the countries with a proper justice system where the condemned person can appeal and get a decent trial.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Sharing to go green
What is the true spirit of "Reduce, reuse, repair, recycle"? One way I can think of going green is to share our household items, thereby reducing the demand, and hence the necessity of their production. The target items are those that we bought for a one-time/occasional use, and would be useful to our neighbors (again, with similar frequency).
I was initially planning to have a website with lots of features for easy sharing, but, in the interest of time, thought of publishing this first.
Due to concerns about privacy and trust, the group among which an individual would share his stuff would be a small subset of all the users. This subset would typically be close acquaintances of the individual (neighbors, colleagues, friends and relatives). The suggestion is that members list out the items that they are willing to share and optionally specify with whom and for how long. For example, I am willing to share the following stuff:
* 4 plastic chairs: everybody, 1 evening (say, for a party at home)
* digital camera: close friends, 1 week (say, for a trip)
* bicycle: everybody (as and when necessary)
* screwdriver: everybody (as and when necessary)
* a weighing scale: acquaintances, 1 evening
When others reciprocate, I would like to get some things myself for a short period:
* a handy cam: close friends (Since this is an expensive item, I find it awkward to approach people I don't know well)
* cycle pump: anybody
* a wooden stool: anybody (as and when necessary)
* plastic chairs
The idea here is to not buy things ourselves, when they are easily available in the community, and we can use it with little loss to the original owner. For example, the convenience that a cycle pump provides at home is great, but then it will be left idle at my home except for about 10 mins in a fortnight. Of course, this little loss incurred by the owner of the cycle pump will be offset by the great value that he/she gets on borrowing my screwdriver. Imagine the savings -- it's not just the money needed for buying this item, but also the time and effort needed for obtaining it. In addition, there might be fuel costs involved in procuring it. Well, one might buy the item when purchasing other items, so there might not be additional fuel consumption at our end, but notice that the demand we create unnecessarily led to its production and transport.
Of course, advertisers would try their best to convince us all that we need to *own* the item *ourselves*. So, the first step in turning greener is to train ourselves to turn a blind eye to advertisements. :)
This suggestion is weaker than free-cycling, where you give away your items forever. In this case, you are still the owner of the item, and may choose if and when you want to lend your items.
Obviously, there are a few issues to watch out for. What if somebody "borrows" an item permanently? What if it gets damaged/stolen before it is returned? In case of a dispute, who will be the judge? This is the situation where a big organization sitting at the center (and preferably having a website through which all these users interact) helps. They can impose membership fees (or refundable deposits) to ensure that in case the borrowed item is not returned, the owner doesn't lose out. Such an organization would also remove the direct personal contact between members which may get irritating at times. For example, Mr. X may presume that he is a very close friend of Mr. Y, and hence can borrow that cool new handycam, and out of politeness, Mr. Y would either have to lend it, or come up with excuses like "oh, somebody else has already borrowed it" (the difficulty with the latter being facing more questions from Mr. X such as "oh, who is it?" or "so, when can I expect to have it?".
A mediator sitting at the center eliminates the transparency that exists, and provides more privacy and comfort to the members. Mr. X would not know who owns a handycam. Mr. Y need not be bothered about who is going to use it as the mediator guarantees its return in good condition. In an ideal world, we shouldn't be owning any of the stuff -- the mediator would. Individuals would just rent it out whenever needed. The laundromat in the western world is a good example of this. Imagine the economies of scale if applied to everything that we need!
I was initially planning to have a website with lots of features for easy sharing, but, in the interest of time, thought of publishing this first.
Due to concerns about privacy and trust, the group among which an individual would share his stuff would be a small subset of all the users. This subset would typically be close acquaintances of the individual (neighbors, colleagues, friends and relatives). The suggestion is that members list out the items that they are willing to share and optionally specify with whom and for how long. For example, I am willing to share the following stuff:
* 4 plastic chairs: everybody, 1 evening (say, for a party at home)
* digital camera: close friends, 1 week (say, for a trip)
* bicycle: everybody (as and when necessary)
* screwdriver: everybody (as and when necessary)
* a weighing scale: acquaintances, 1 evening
When others reciprocate, I would like to get some things myself for a short period:
* a handy cam: close friends (Since this is an expensive item, I find it awkward to approach people I don't know well)
* cycle pump: anybody
* a wooden stool: anybody (as and when necessary)
* plastic chairs
The idea here is to not buy things ourselves, when they are easily available in the community, and we can use it with little loss to the original owner. For example, the convenience that a cycle pump provides at home is great, but then it will be left idle at my home except for about 10 mins in a fortnight. Of course, this little loss incurred by the owner of the cycle pump will be offset by the great value that he/she gets on borrowing my screwdriver. Imagine the savings -- it's not just the money needed for buying this item, but also the time and effort needed for obtaining it. In addition, there might be fuel costs involved in procuring it. Well, one might buy the item when purchasing other items, so there might not be additional fuel consumption at our end, but notice that the demand we create unnecessarily led to its production and transport.
Of course, advertisers would try their best to convince us all that we need to *own* the item *ourselves*. So, the first step in turning greener is to train ourselves to turn a blind eye to advertisements. :)
This suggestion is weaker than free-cycling, where you give away your items forever. In this case, you are still the owner of the item, and may choose if and when you want to lend your items.
Obviously, there are a few issues to watch out for. What if somebody "borrows" an item permanently? What if it gets damaged/stolen before it is returned? In case of a dispute, who will be the judge? This is the situation where a big organization sitting at the center (and preferably having a website through which all these users interact) helps. They can impose membership fees (or refundable deposits) to ensure that in case the borrowed item is not returned, the owner doesn't lose out. Such an organization would also remove the direct personal contact between members which may get irritating at times. For example, Mr. X may presume that he is a very close friend of Mr. Y, and hence can borrow that cool new handycam, and out of politeness, Mr. Y would either have to lend it, or come up with excuses like "oh, somebody else has already borrowed it" (the difficulty with the latter being facing more questions from Mr. X such as "oh, who is it?" or "so, when can I expect to have it?".
A mediator sitting at the center eliminates the transparency that exists, and provides more privacy and comfort to the members. Mr. X would not know who owns a handycam. Mr. Y need not be bothered about who is going to use it as the mediator guarantees its return in good condition. In an ideal world, we shouldn't be owning any of the stuff -- the mediator would. Individuals would just rent it out whenever needed. The laundromat in the western world is a good example of this. Imagine the economies of scale if applied to everything that we need!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)