Digital Box

 I don't know much about what is ethics at all. It seems something that is too hard to be written in law book is termed as ethics. Or something that is duty but couldn't thought of as showering benefit in apparent exchange at person to person basis. I may have wrongly learned it as form of Virtue from Kant or what impression I have got from. But why virtue etc. Basically all social norms are protection from death or fear of death. As a society human may save themselves from other things but they may kill each other. Ethics may be just a passive way to save oneself from death or perceived threat of death or perceived fear of death of society at larger scale. If this is just connected to death or negative form of life then it is worst than anything else as it will cause more fear of death. etc.

 “1:6:4:1414.” “He, indeed, is in a prosperous state with whom, while the old food is still unfailing, fresh food is accruing; for such a one has indeed abundant food.” Excerpt From The Shatapatha Brahmana, Part 1--Julius Eggeling

 Section 10(Cha) of Income Tax Act, 2058- Exempt Gifts other than related to Employment, Business and Investment. Since all 3 exceptions are economic activities and any transactions thereof couldn't be termed as Gift in true sense. Section 2(Yana) defines Gift as something obtained without any return from the transfer. Which is in line with leaving the non-economic activities outside taxation.  However, Income Tax Manual,2066 (4th amendment) went to such an extent to allow dowry tax exempt.  Taxation also functions as a tool to allow accumulation of wealth to some people and not so for others. At the time of economic depression, wealth should be transformed into capital make it productive, at other times it should be humanitarian. Since, both are humanitarian activities at different form. However, wastage of wealth by letting it used in 5 things Parikshit Maharaj allowed for Kali to reside (Source: Mahabharata) in a sense to UNMAD the vulgar exuberance of human existence,...

I have no idea and often trapped into the question of justice whenever the interest is in question. A poor can get no credit i.e. indeterminate discount has been applied to the credit and rich gets the cheapest credit. Poor seems to need it the most yet he/she can't score it. Middle class gets it with high interest rates and more than sufficient collateral held. While rich can get it without or very little of his/her own asset.  Satapath Brahaman and Manu Smriti clearly allowed taking interest within certain limits and certain law. Little bit of finance and little bit of economics in my head seems to agree that the interest is the must on credit and poorer the quality of credit higher the interest rate must be. Why? Interest is the return and this includes premium for risk taken. Poor quality credit has higher chance of defaulting and thus the premium will be higher.  What about the poor that is in need of money? First the principal and then the added higher rate of interest. ...