My wife has been making monthly transfers from her WeChat to mine.
But this month when I tried to receive the payment, the app asked me to verify my identify by registering a SECOND bank account with WeChat - citing some regulatory requirements.
Has anyone else run into this? Is this a new thing, or have these monthly transfers accumulated over some threshold to trigger this?
I only have one bank account in China in my own name, do not wish to link (if even possible) corporate account that I have, nor open a second bank account just to verify my identify - but suppose I must if there's no other way.
A residence permit (temporary) is possible to renew months in advance, if there is even semi-good reason.
Say, you will be travelling elsewhere for couple of months, or like in my case my passport will expire in 2023 so already this year they reminded to renew next time (in 2022) a few months earlier so that I can get the 1-year RP until my passport expiration.
@sunjiangyu: "Did not need wife's hukou (did need her temporary Kunming residence permit because she's not from Kunming),"
In this situation, the last times I applied for marriage residence permit (that was a few years ago) they could not give more than 1 year, because wife was on 1 year temporary permits as well, and mine couldn't be longer than hers.
Was your choice of 2 year permit perhaps similarly based on your wife's permit?
I believe that at the time of Aichi conference in 2010, many European countries were already struggling to implement and manage their commitments to Europe's own "Natura 2000" program, which was agreed way back in 1992, a year before EU in its current form even existed.
Like I stated in earlier comment, in this kind of matters EU countries have the benefit of having an entity above their national governments, that they cannot simply ignore when inconvenient. There have been infringements, but also legal means to address those.
Few other countries have this. I would say that above all, PRC (and the ruling party here) would not accept any external (or internal) force to bind her sovereignty that way.
YaXu5: "nor the luxury of muscle flexing until 2030 or beyond. Reelections may be just around the corner"
I doubt that for example any EU country is going to commit to this kind of treaty without EU itself acting as proxy for it, and EU making that commitment on behalf of the member nations - details being subject to debates within EU first of course.
Subsequently most countries within EU (poke Poland) place EU directives above their national legislation, and as such national elections generally have no lawful relevance to continued commitments to EU level treaties - save exiting EU altogether, in extreme cases.
@aliennew: "the important thing here is to give the kids of the poor an even break, which is hard to do when the kids of the rich have"
Naturally so. My argument is that the poor should have to pay taxes too (even if very marginal amounts), so that they would learn to ask for better services in exchange for that, and this would work towards breaks their kids get. They would learn to ask for them.
The current 3500 RMB tax break in monthly income, defined in national level, means huge number of rural residents never having to pay income taxes, and I would like to see the tax system reformed so that every person feels contributing to the common good, and in that everyone would be on the same line.
Then people in rural Yunnan and elsewhere could slowly learn to ask for same services as those in Kunming or Shanghai, since they would be contributing to the system on same terms..
Perhaps the money just isn't there, but at least more of the little there is would be directed to be spent properly.
Because political system in China is naturally demotivating people from taking part in public interests and discussions for political reasons. They are also arguably quite restricted from pursuing the same goals for religious or spiritual reasons.
Since Deng, Chinese are however allowed and even urged to acquire financial wealth and prosperity. Social participation and activation of the public should therefore piggyback on money here.
The poor shouldn't have to pay taxes to finance the system, but to activate themselves to follow up on those tax contributions.
Specifically on OP, this means motivating to send your children to school, and to certain degree also making you interested to know whether your neighbour does that. And that once they do attend the school, they get the money's worth.of education.
"as for the poor caring where the tax goes, many are too ignorant of how governmt works anyhow"
Agreed, but I''d say that it is partly a chicken and egg problem. For better or worse, it is money that makes the world go around, and money can just as well stop it going around. Populism could be one realization of it stop going around.
I believe that in China more than anywhere this nature of money (or exchange of goods in wider context) should be utilized to mobilize the interest of the common people for their common causes.
But it may still be too early for the Chinese government to allow that. Too many skeletons still in open.
And on the note of 1%ers, if they would be made to pay 1% more tax, the question is whether they would pay it or move to a tax haven somewhere else. Worst case scenario is that instead of them paying 1% more, they would be paying zero.
@Dazzer: I don't mean the difference being in significantly bigger tax revenue, but the impact for individual families when they recognize that they have to pay their children's education and other state costs (via taxes) out of their very little income anyway, so why not use it..
For a person that makes, for example, a mere 100 RMB a month, 1 RMB or 1% tax taken out would go towards activating them to care how that 1 RMB gets used.
If the local government builds a new school house, they'd feel that they contributed to finance it and that they should use it.
评论
还没有评论
Cookie Preferences
Please select which types of cookies you are willing to accept:
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者@aliennew: "the important thing here is to give the kids of the poor an even break, which is hard to do when the kids of the rich have"
Naturally so. My argument is that the poor should have to pay taxes too (even if very marginal amounts), so that they would learn to ask for better services in exchange for that, and this would work towards breaks their kids get. They would learn to ask for them.
The current 3500 RMB tax break in monthly income, defined in national level, means huge number of rural residents never having to pay income taxes, and I would like to see the tax system reformed so that every person feels contributing to the common good, and in that everyone would be on the same line.
Then people in rural Yunnan and elsewhere could slowly learn to ask for same services as those in Kunming or Shanghai, since they would be contributing to the system on same terms..
Perhaps the money just isn't there, but at least more of the little there is would be directed to be spent properly.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者@alienew: "Why "in China more than anywhere"?"
Because political system in China is naturally demotivating people from taking part in public interests and discussions for political reasons. They are also arguably quite restricted from pursuing the same goals for religious or spiritual reasons.
Since Deng, Chinese are however allowed and even urged to acquire financial wealth and prosperity. Social participation and activation of the public should therefore piggyback on money here.
The poor shouldn't have to pay taxes to finance the system, but to activate themselves to follow up on those tax contributions.
Specifically on OP, this means motivating to send your children to school, and to certain degree also making you interested to know whether your neighbour does that. And that once they do attend the school, they get the money's worth.of education.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者"as for the poor caring where the tax goes, many are too ignorant of how governmt works anyhow"
Agreed, but I''d say that it is partly a chicken and egg problem. For better or worse, it is money that makes the world go around, and money can just as well stop it going around. Populism could be one realization of it stop going around.
I believe that in China more than anywhere this nature of money (or exchange of goods in wider context) should be utilized to mobilize the interest of the common people for their common causes.
But it may still be too early for the Chinese government to allow that. Too many skeletons still in open.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者And on the note of 1%ers, if they would be made to pay 1% more tax, the question is whether they would pay it or move to a tax haven somewhere else. Worst case scenario is that instead of them paying 1% more, they would be paying zero.
It is (or should be) a fine balance.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
发布者@Dazzer: I don't mean the difference being in significantly bigger tax revenue, but the impact for individual families when they recognize that they have to pay their children's education and other state costs (via taxes) out of their very little income anyway, so why not use it..
For a person that makes, for example, a mere 100 RMB a month, 1 RMB or 1% tax taken out would go towards activating them to care how that 1 RMB gets used.
If the local government builds a new school house, they'd feel that they contributed to finance it and that they should use it.