My son's kindergarten is going to resume in Monday, and they asked for 48h test results from everyone in the household by Monday morning.
Possibly related to this, today I heard a central free testing facility in our neighborhood had run out of swabs by 4pm, and had to stop taking tests for the day because of that.
@AlPage48: "hate the way the word "free" is used in the context of health care"
Even if it's all provided by the state's tax revenues, someone does pay indeed.
But compared to many other countries, in China the state and local governments get revenue from many other sources than direct taxation of individuals.
Lot of people (in particular in cities like Kunming and lower) do not earn enough to ever pay income tax, even if full-time employed. What you earn you keep, and what you spend is your choice.
It makes it appear less like you are paying for someone else's health care when you finance the system by buying an apartment, cigarettes, train ticket, or whatever.
I'm not sure sure if you interpreted my previous post as I intended, but to continue on the HOD theme, my point was for the underlings to do as the King judges best, so the King may observe possible errors in his own judgement and improve on that in future.
So as to avoid giving false impression of (for example) businesses surviving despite the restrictions, just because the restrictions are not actually followed that much.
Varying enforcement and miscommunications could be primary reason for some debatably tough policies (and not just about CoVid) in China.
If government decisions would be followed more accurately, perhaps said government could better observe side-effects of hazardous policies, and avoid formulating such in future.
From this perspective I think that reporting (for what it's worth on forums like this) what really happens on the ground is beneficial in bigger picture - even if it could land some businesses in trouble.
In our vicinity there are places where you can still get the test for free, and other newer ones have been popping up where it is the 16ish RMB with shorter lines. I take this as government acknowledging that the testing burden is too much without buying extra services, hence the fees.
I get that these restrictions are for all of China, but so are my arguments above to try to understand them.
Personally I am against the restrictions despite the (debatable) life saving reasoning behind them.
I would quote a medical professional from Finland at early stages of the pandemic, who tried tor rationalize the acceptability of old people simply dying away. He phrased it along the lines of "old people don't die because they stop eating, they stop eating because they are dying".
About the elderly and other vulnerable groups, I can only assume that the very purpose of these restrictions is to get them stay at home. Getting around is problematic, but that's probably the point of this exercise.
I dare to speculate that the number of those missing important hospital visits or other other life-critical appointments is small relative to those that might get seriously (deadly) ill from getting the virus from going to shopping centers, dancing, or picking up grandchildren, if that was easy.
Notable also that at least in some locales elderly are/were not allowed to get vaccinated at local clinics, and are still missing vaccinations completely.
@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.