Why the view "I am the owner of my karma" not contradict anatta?

Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "*I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do*" when this seems to contradict anatta? **Isn't thinking "*I am X*" contradicting the teaching of anatta?** There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93 . **Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "*owner of kamma, heir of kamma*" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?** Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "*there's no self in this body and mind doing anything*"? What's the consequence of this view? From AN 5.57 : > “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a > householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of > my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my > relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, > good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech, > and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct > is either completely abandoned or diminished.