Thursday, 6 June 2013


Once upon a time my grandparents paid for a dam to be built.  When they died, they gave the dam to my parents.  And when they died, they gave the dam to me.  The dam is willed to my children when I die.  Or it would be, but the government confiscated half of it, and sold the half they confiscated to their mates.  They told me I should be happy with the half I still have, lest they confiscate that and sell it, too.  And that in exchange, they would use the cash they received to purchase things that governments tend to purchase anyway.  Seems like a bit of a con to me.  However, that's not my gripe.

My grandparents paid for the dam.  When my parents inherited it, it had been paid off.  Sure, it cost a bit to run, things like oil for the moving bits, de-silting the dam, overhauling the generators every decade or so, replacing worn turbines, that kind of thing.  But overall it was pretty cheap.

Then along comes a peacock called Brent Layton, a bloke with a vested interest if ever I saw one, who puts up this hypothetical argument.  Essentially what he's saying is that I should pay the operational cost and the cost of the dam as if it were new.

Well, I sure as hell don't do that with my car.  It's well paid off and all I pay for is oil, petrol and tyres.
So why should I do it for my dam?  No abstract answers accepted.

Therapy? - Nurse, 1992

No comments:

Post a Comment