From The Principal'S Desk Lhs- Parcc Air Spring - Testing: Fill & Download for Free

Home Loan Prepayment is a good idea because it ends up eating a lot of money in the name of interest. It is not good for your own financial health to give away a big chunk of money as a home loan. There is Home Loan tenure for each and every loan that is passed. Eight years is the average Home Loan tenure in India.When Should You Go for a Home Loan Pre-Payment?First thing, a customer can save a lot of money on interest by making a pre-payment of their home loan before the tenure. This is obviously the best pro for prepayment of the home loan.Paying the entire amount early in the loan tenure so you can take the advantage of foregoing less on interest is the trick. Even at a later stage in the tenure, where customer has paid much of the interest,If he or she has an excess of cash, it is always a good practice to prepay the loan and get some money off your back.Some banks have penalty rates which range from 3% to 5% if a customer makes up his mind to prepay his or her loan. However, the Reserve Bank of India had announced recently to stop charging a penalty to the customers who decide to prepay and close the loan account, though this only applies if a loan is levied on ‘floating-rate’ basis. As most of the loans are on fixed rate basis, the rule is not applicable.There are still some private and public sector banks who do not charge an extra penalty to a customer who opts to do so.In such a case, it is you in the advantage as you’re making use of idle cash by cutting off the extra interest you had to pay if you paid the regular EMI. The idle cash you possess would return you less when kept in a bank or in a fixed deposit elsewhere than you save on prepaying your house loan.When Should You not Go for a pre-payment?In the case where a home loan is not being a burden on your head, it is sometimes beneficial to continue with the regular EMI schedule. This needs to be brought up as there are tax benefits which home loan offers. Section 80C treats the principal component of EMI. Also, the interest component is deducted, which is from your taxable income, under section 24. Annual detection of the tax can cap up to INR 200,000 per year. However, you won’t be able to claim the deduction paid above INR 200,000, if the annual deduction is higher than INR 200,000, it is sensible to prepay the loan, else, you can consider paying the EMI.Let’s say for example. For a loan of INR 7.5 million, the annual interest at 9.5% would be INR 706,848. Taking account of INR 200,000 deduction, the interest component would become INR 506,848, which would bring the interest from 9.5% to 8.64%.In another case, suppose of prepaying the whole amount, you invest the money somewhere else, let’s say mutual funds, which will also help you earn returns over years.Let’s take another example. Where an individual pays current EMI of INR 22,022 , he has 15 years more left on the loan at an interest of 12%, he is approximately paying INR 66,000 additional, that is around INR 5,500 a month and saves INR 900,000 in interest if he pays the entire loan off if he pays 9 years earlier, he would be missing out tax benefits of approx INR 150,000 a year.Instead of prepaying the loan, if he invests the INR 5,500 MONTHLY in equity for 9 years. Let us assume 15% cash back on equity, in this case, he would be earning approximation of INR 1.25 million.In such a case, it would be more sensible to invest in equity rather than prepaying the loan as the profit in equity is clearly more than prepaying.Hence it becomes your job would be to check what is more beneficial for you.

The Byzantine empire was up until recently a niche subject. It wasn’t classical and classical scholars often tended to disregard anything after AD 300. Meanwhile medieval scholars didn’t see the Byzantine Empire as western but rather as ‘oriental’ and ‘orthodox’ which meant it fell outside of the scope of study. Then there’s the fact that the areas controlled by the Byzantines are now part of a smattering of nation states many of whom don’t always have an interest in digging up and researching their shared common ancestor.Archaeologists operating in areas that were controlled by the Byzantines often had the goal of excavating some part of the classical layers and not the Byzantine ones.Michael J. Decker gives an overview in his book the Byzantine Dark Ages on how recent the field evolved:Their participants wore their interests on their sleeves and their interests lay in the classical world or, more broadly, the past as detailed in classical literature and the Bible. Byzantium was ‘post- interesting’ (the way in which more than one archaeologist in the Middle East have described the period to me). As the magnificent public centres of Ephesus came to light, the overburden of medieval and modern layers were simply dug through, only rarely mentioned, and almost always left unrecorded. This scene was repeated throughout all of the major classical cities of the east put under the spade. It has begun to change only quite recently, meaning a great deal has been lost. Th is is not to decry the methods or their practitioners, which would be akin to asking a medieval king to consider building an airfield. We remain in the early days of institutionalized, ‘scientific’ approaches in many disciplines, and the creation of a culture and shared values and standards among academics takes quite a long time to develop and will be perpetually redefined as we go. It was, and sadly remains for some, inconceivable to require archaeologists specializing in earlier periods to meticulously record, study, and publish the medieval material that they encounter.…One of the earliest excavations to take somewhat seriously the medieval levels was Corinth, where the American School had been excavating since 1896. Th e publications of hundreds of medieval objects by Davidson (1952) and medieval architecture by Scranton (1957) are commendable and were watershed moments in the world of Anglo-Saxon Mediterranean archaeology. Robinson’s excavations, which began in 1959, provided some of the first systematically studied ceramics and small- finds from the Byzantine period in Greece. Nonetheless, Byzantium proved somewhat impervious to broader movements within archaeology, in large part because of the array of nation-states atop the former lands of the empire in which the study of the civilization was (and is) enmeshed. Many of the most promising regions for research, such as Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia, suffered decades of Soviet domination. Archaeologists in these countries therefore remained rather isolated from western ideas and standards or otherwise resistant to them, and were often too poor to support multidisciplinary archaeological research as excavations became increasingly involved and expensive. Under such competing outlooks, some of them tied to scholars with specific religious or ethnic agendas, an international school of Byzantine archaeology with a recognizable intellectual or physical heart did not materialize. This has seriously undermined inquiry in all aspects of material culture, the economy among them.…As recently as the 1990s, Byzantine archaeology was viewed as a field (if it was even considered such) with quaint interests belonging to a different age. In a striking window into this state of the subject and how outside professionals conceived it, The Oxford Companion to Archaeology (Fagan 1996 ) entry of ‘Byzantine archaeology’ included the subheadings ‘Decorative Arts’, ‘Fortifications’, ‘Ancient Synagogues’ (!), and ‘Byzantine Monasteries’. This is not a criticism of the specific volume but rather a point intended to highlight the relative backwardness of the field(s) concerned by those who study Byzantine material culture. In many of its interests and tenets, Byzantine archaeology has changed little since 1950. Byzantine archaeology does not exist at all as an academic field or discipline if the criteria as such depend upon an internationally recognized centre of funding, support, and scholarly interaction, or the publication of a marquee journal.As you can imagine the previous state of Byzantine archaeology was not conductive to preserving large amounts of armor fragments.With that out of the way there are also some other things to consider.It’s quite possible that the early Roman Empire produced more armor than the Byzantines did it a similar period of time. They certainly had a larger army and potentially they had more, and more durable, armor that was more likely to leave archaeological traces.We do have various Byzantine military treaties which are a joy to read and illustrate what soldiers were supposed to wear but one has to keep in mind some may have been armored with little more than wishful thinking.The type of armor is also important because some forms survive better than others. Copper alloy stuff tends to get recycled a lot but if it ends up buried it is likely to emerge several centuries later in relatively good condition. Things like mail shirts or segmentata are relatively substantial and don’t get scattered easily which means they possibly emerge as a dense pile of rust. Scale and lamellar on the other hand will have a textile or organic backing and/or lacing which will quickly deteriorate encouraging the individual pieces to spread. Said pieces also tend to be relatively thin with a large surface area to encourage oxidation. The padded garments worn by many would not have survived at all. Unlike earlier groups the Byzantines did not practice interring people with grave goods nor did they practice tossing arms and armor in bogs.These are just some of the things I could come up with but there might be more reasons for so few extant pieces of Byzantine arms and armour being around.

Not sure about should…. Mine expects you to teach the state standards and manage your classroom well.