KR Chat GPT analysed the weakness of the argument but left to elaborate on the point. One point is about the FDs of the bank. 2nd mute point was land price; IS IT NOT A FACT THAT ENHANCEMENT OF LAND PRICE IS ALSO DUE TO INFLATION, GIVING AN APPEARANCE OF HUGE INCOME? THEN CAN IT BE TAXED? IF SAY NO, THEN THERE IS FALLACY IN ARGUMENT OF DISTINGUISHING THE FD AND LAND; IF “YES” THEN ONLY THE INFLATION IS TAXED SO PARIPASU TAXING THE FD IS RELEVANT AS THAT OF LAND. So then leaving fd if land is taxed at higher rates also one may squeal. So it is not the inflation or fake income whether FD or LAND; it is paying the tax which is less than 1/6th, which was paid by the ancestors to the Kings silently. Ofcourse, then we may demand that as GDP is crossing high marks, all shall pay tax on real or fake income whether ag land or others. That is forceful thinking where politics must be bent to accept. Savings were blocked by Chidambaram cong when Singh Manmohan was PM. WHERE ONE SECTION SHALL NOT SAVE WHY SHOULD OTHER LANDOWNERS WHOSE INFLATED VALUE IS CRORES SHALL BE SPARED? If we may hear at least a million voices well there is a dawn across. K Rajaram IRS 26226
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 at 07:42, Yeddanapudi Markandeyulu < [email protected]> wrote: > I understand your frustration. Let me restate your argument in its *pure, > simple form*, without dilution and without technical complication. > > Your core point is this: > > - > > If *interest = inflation*, real income becomes zero. > - > > Even then, tax is charged on the nominal interest. > - > > Meanwhile, the *purchasing power of the principal declines*. > - > > Therefore, the saver becomes poorer in real terms. > > That is your fundamental grievance. > > You are not making a mathematical curiosity. You are making a moral claim: > > A retiree who earns no real income should not be taxed as if he has earned > income. > > That is a clear and coherent position. > > Now, about the principal: > > When inflation is 10%, ₹1,00,000 after one year has the purchasing power > of roughly ₹90,000 in previous-year terms. Whether we say “the principal > becomes ₹90,000” or “its purchasing power equals ₹90,000,” the lived > reality for the retiree is the same: *he can buy less.* > > Your second point is also simple: > > - > > Land prices in India often rise sharply. > - > > Bank deposits remain numerically fixed. > - > > Over time, deposits lose relative economic strength compared to land. > > That comparison creates psychological and financial pressure: > > Retirees think: > > - > > “My deposits are shrinking in real value.” > - > > “Land values are rising.” > - > > “Maybe I should shift.” > > And in India, as you point out, this shift has consequences. Unscrupulous > developers have built illegally over lakes, wetlands, parks, and riverbeds. > Environmental damage has followed. That part is not theoretical — it is > visible in several cities. > > However, here is where I must be intellectually honest with you. > > The taxation of interest may contribute to dissatisfaction with bank > deposits. > But environmental destruction is primarily caused by: > > - > > Weak enforcement of land laws > - > > Corruption in local governance > - > > Speculative greed > - > > Urbanization pressures > > Tax on interest may be one irritation among many — but it is not the > central driver of ecological collapse. > > If you want your argument to remain powerful, keep it disciplined: > > Strong Version of Your Argument: > > - > > Inflation reduces real returns on fixed deposits. > - > > Taxing nominal interest during high inflation reduces real savings > further. > - > > Retirees depending on fixed income instruments are especially > vulnerable. > - > > Policy should consider inflation when taxing conservative savers. > > Weaker Version: > > - > > Tax on interest causes biosphere destruction and civilizational doom. > > When you mix the second into the first, critics will dismiss the entire > piece — even the strong part. > > You are correct that the issue is simple: > Inflation eats returns. Tax ignores inflation. > > That is the clean core of your case. > > But if you want policymakers or serious readers to engage with you, the > argument must remain proportionate. The moral force of your concern for > retirees is strongest when it is not stretched into apocalyptic conclusions. > > If you wish, I can now rewrite your piece in a way that preserves your > intensity but makes it unassailable logically. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "societyforservingseniors" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CAPYPc16RYzZYpfCdWNUaS5vxmHJD4%3D2rzSGoyf4y77g8sLS27g%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CAPYPc16RYzZYpfCdWNUaS5vxmHJD4%3D2rzSGoyf4y77g8sLS27g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorQ9GYwuCwXZEKQGyfT7kSzmcVQmBRZhV5tTxRAecagLg%40mail.gmail.com.
