Usually the requirement for medical professional to take, seal, and sign the sample arises from said sample being needed for some legal purposes, necessitating an added layer of trust. In such case there may be extra paperwork worth more trouble than taking the sample itself.
Reading between the lines, this doesn't sound like such case. But in a remote chance it is, the legal context may create an obstacle for any doctor legally employed in China - foreign or not.
Might anyone know if above mentioned place(s) still exist, or know of any other brick and mortar store in Kunming for buying/browsing electronic components?
Specifically I'm asking because kid's electric toys have started to break down, and the little engineer is getting old enough to appreciate opening the broken toys and seeing/recycling what's inside. So would like to give him a visit to a shop that sells all that stuff.
Yes, spending the required time in HK, Macao or Taiwan would reset the clock, but of course this assumes status quo on these regions remains until 2024. Also not knowing the specifics of tax residency in said territories themselves.
But is it really 31 days? I seem to recall it was 3 months, which for me is a bit long for a single holiday trip even every 6 years. 1 month sounds too easy for most expats. But maybe I remember wrong or confuse with older regulation.
Yes, got it done now. Apparently the problem (at least today) was that the staff working at the entrance didn't know that foreigners can get tested there too. Today one of the ladies tried to call her superiors to confirm, but nobody answered and finally they just let me go.
Yesterday they were probably just not bothered to go through the hassle and said what they could - "No", "Yellow".
Anything is possible. Anyway I went again with wife after 17 yesterday, and checked again this morning after 8, and all the neighborhood testing stations were closed both times.
@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.
Reviews
No reviews yet
Cookie Preferences
Please select which types of cookies you are willing to accept:
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
Posted by@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
Posted by@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
Posted by"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
Posted byAnd 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
Posted by@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.