Forums > Living in Kunming > Keep Calm and Carry on
Probably for the best, that? I mean they'd keep to themselves instead of go around displaying and spreading it further.
Probably for the best, that? I mean they'd keep to themselves instead of go around displaying and spreading it further.
@l4dybug: "dare say that directly to their "puny" faces?"
Well, what do we say to the God of Death?
The marital typhoon may not be so noticeable in countries where both the divorce rates and the societal acceptance of divorces is at another level than in China, and has been for a while. Nothing to add to those by a puny virus.
@l4dybug: "Apparently divorce registrations surged"
It would be interesting to delve deeper into those figures, but I can continue on my theory anyway.
Could it be that many of those divorcing couples either already had children, or were unhappy of their present spouse to have one with (or at all)?
I can imagine that having both parents (and possibly grands also) at home, could raise debates about child rearing when neither parent has obligations outside home to justify not taking part in such at home - or observing any other realities of stayhome parenthood.
Either way, I'd expect these divorcees to move on, and (at least one of the former couple) soon enough find a more ideal candidate to make offspring with.
I recognize that in the hypothetical situation that I was to divorce, a likely candidate (knowing myself) for new relationship would come with expectation to have a child with - while otherwise a second child is not something we are planning.
So yeah, divorces could have been expected, but it doesn't necessarily mean less children in the big picture.
I fail to even see what this new draft proposes to change.
"Foreigners with internationally acknowledged achievements"
"Foreigners who have made outstanding contributions"
"Talented foreigners in urgent demand"
"foreigners whose investment in China is at least 10 million"
"spouses of Chinese citizens"
All this sounds the same as before.
Which, in my mind, raises suspicion that this is just a show to give the public a chance to voice their opinions in things that don't even matter, as opposed to allowing it in politically sensitive issues that would matter.
Rings a bell with some government-authorized street protests against building chemical plants in middle of Chinese cities. Smoke and mirrors.
No results found.
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.