论文部分内容阅读
would you live with your elderly parents because you love them and want to take care of them in their old age？ or would you be cajoled into doing that because you hope to gain financially from the arrangement？
this is the intense debate triggered by a recent government decision that promises your tax will be reduced if you share the same roof with your aged parents and take care of them.
it began in december 2015 when the local government of shenzhen in south china’s Guangdong Province issued a draft plan to tackle the problems of an aging population. the draft says the government will offer a tax rebate to employed people who live with their aged parents.
According to china National committee on Aging， by the end of 2014， china had 212 million people above the age of 60， accounting for 15.5 percent of the country’s population. the figure is expected to surge to 487 million- 35 percent of the population - by 2053. An aging population will pose severe challenges to the nation in the near future.
when the draft was released， the public became divided on whether young people should be given financial incentives to care for their elderly parents. those supporting it say the policy will lighten young people’s financial burdens. Also， by sharing the same roof with their elderly parents， they will be able to take care of the former’s daily requirements as well as emotional needs.
But critics of the policy say living under the same roof doesn’t necessarily mean filial piety. A utilitarian arrangement entered into due to financial considerations may lack filial love and care. the government should also play its role in providing for the elderly.
PRO
Liu Changhai
Media commentator Though an aging society is approaching us， it is still impossible for society to shoulder the whole responsibility of caring for the elderly in the near future due to the economic situation and China’s tradition of providing for one’s elderly parents. Families play an indispensable role.
However， one cannot dismiss the fact that young people living in cities already have to bear a heavy financial burden. Offering tax cuts to young people who live with their parents in cities will lessen their burden.
In fact， there are examples of such practice in the world. In Germany， if the younger generation live with the elder generation， the family can enjoy tax reductions and discounts on bank loan interest rates when buying a house. At the institutional level， South Korea and Japan also encourage families to care for their elderly parents. Human beings are emotional creatures. No matter how perfect the social security network is， it cannot take care of senior citizens’ emotional needs. As long as it is affordable， enjoying a retired life at home with one’s children is always the best choice.
The policy is a positive guide. There should be more preferential regulations on caring for the elderly so that extended families can enjoy more economic support and retired people can live an emotionally fulfilling life. CA
PRO
yang Chaoqing
Media commentator It is a good policy. Currently， many young people live away from their parents， leaving the latter unattended and desolate. The reasons are not just economic pressure and cramped living quarters， but also differences in the values and lifestyles of the two generations.
With the approach of old age， senior people need emotional support. In Chinese culture， a family means people sharing not only physical proximity but also psychological intimacy. The policy aims to encourage young people to live with their parents. They will get concrete benefits from the tax cut. This kind of public policy has both moral and practical value since the virtue of filial piety gets support at the institutional level and is encouraged with concrete benefits. CA
COn
mu Xuchong
Media commentator Offering tax reductions to people who live with their aged parents is a policy with good intentions. Theoretically， it would increase a family’s income and alleviate the economic pressure coming from supporting elderly parents. The issue is whether it is in line with the principle of fairness. Families with high incomes are also eligible to enjoy the tax reduction. So in the end， the policy will subsidize the rich while ignoring the economically vulnerable. And it is those economically vulnerable families who cannot afford to live together with their parents. In this sense， I don’t think it is a good policy.
To encourage people to care for older people’s emotional needs， the government should make policies that are universally applicable. Two factors prevent young people from providing such care. The first is lack of time. In response， the government should support companies to extend employees’ paid leave. The second is economic pressure. The vulnerable group should be given special considerations in this regard. I think the government can subsidize the rents paid by migrant families who invite their elderly parents to live with them. Besides， the government should also play its due role in caring for the old by providing better public services and improving the pension system. CA
PRO
yuan guangkuo
Media commentator Obviously， the regulation aims to encourage children to live with their parents so that they can play a better role in providing material and mental support and care for the old. The tax reduction offered by the government is actually a kind of subsidy to those who care for the elderly by living with them. It will lessen young people’s economic burden.
Currently， a lot of young people will not spend a lot of time with their parents because of various reasons. Single adults are tired of parents’ nagging and prefer to enjoy a free life without parental surveillance. The married ones worry about domestic disputes and difficult relations with mothers-in-law. Living on their own sets the younger generation free but leaves aging parents unattended， especially from the emotional perspective.
As a guiding regulation， the policy will inspire young people to show filial piety and guarantee that the elderly receive better care. The regulation is of great practical significance on the premise that families play the biggest role in providing for their elders. CA
COn
Qiao Xuan
Employee in Beijing The regulation is actually a moral bind that restricts people’s right to freedom of choice. On the one hand， with the development of the economy， many senior people are self-sufficient both financially and emotionally. My parents， for example， prefer to live by themselves rather than sharing the same roof with me because they want to have more personal space and their own social life.
On the other hand， when children grow up， and especially after they get married， they may have a lot of differences from the older generation on lifestyle concepts. As most of us live on our salaries， we cannot afford a big house where the two generations can live together and still have their privacy. Excessive proximity will be unavoidable and will eventually cause domestic disputes. Absence， on the other hand， makes the heart grow fonder. In my opinion， living separately but making frequent visits is much better for a harmonious relationship between the two generations.
There are many ways to support your parents. Living together may not be the best way. People can choose the most suitable approach according to each family’s circumstances. CA COn
zi Xi
It seems the regulation is a win-win solution as it encourages a traditional virtue and relieves people of their economic burden at the same time. But I don’t think it is appropriate to relate filial piety to a utilitarian purpose. Loving and dutiful children will visit their parents regularly and take care of their emotional needs though they cannot live together due to many reasons， such as a busy work schedule or financial incapability. Many people do not want to live away from their parents but have to do so. So simply offering a tax rebate will not solve the problem.
For those who don’t want to live with their parents but have the means to do so may choose to live with them， tempted by the thought of getting their taxes reduced. But then living under the same roof solely due to a utilitarian purpose is just pro forma action and does not indicate sincere caring. Such an arrangement would only lead to domestic disputes and inconvenience for both the generations. CA
this is the intense debate triggered by a recent government decision that promises your tax will be reduced if you share the same roof with your aged parents and take care of them.
it began in december 2015 when the local government of shenzhen in south china’s Guangdong Province issued a draft plan to tackle the problems of an aging population. the draft says the government will offer a tax rebate to employed people who live with their aged parents.
According to china National committee on Aging， by the end of 2014， china had 212 million people above the age of 60， accounting for 15.5 percent of the country’s population. the figure is expected to surge to 487 million- 35 percent of the population - by 2053. An aging population will pose severe challenges to the nation in the near future.
when the draft was released， the public became divided on whether young people should be given financial incentives to care for their elderly parents. those supporting it say the policy will lighten young people’s financial burdens. Also， by sharing the same roof with their elderly parents， they will be able to take care of the former’s daily requirements as well as emotional needs.
But critics of the policy say living under the same roof doesn’t necessarily mean filial piety. A utilitarian arrangement entered into due to financial considerations may lack filial love and care. the government should also play its role in providing for the elderly.
PRO
Liu Changhai
Media commentator Though an aging society is approaching us， it is still impossible for society to shoulder the whole responsibility of caring for the elderly in the near future due to the economic situation and China’s tradition of providing for one’s elderly parents. Families play an indispensable role.
However， one cannot dismiss the fact that young people living in cities already have to bear a heavy financial burden. Offering tax cuts to young people who live with their parents in cities will lessen their burden.
In fact， there are examples of such practice in the world. In Germany， if the younger generation live with the elder generation， the family can enjoy tax reductions and discounts on bank loan interest rates when buying a house. At the institutional level， South Korea and Japan also encourage families to care for their elderly parents. Human beings are emotional creatures. No matter how perfect the social security network is， it cannot take care of senior citizens’ emotional needs. As long as it is affordable， enjoying a retired life at home with one’s children is always the best choice.
The policy is a positive guide. There should be more preferential regulations on caring for the elderly so that extended families can enjoy more economic support and retired people can live an emotionally fulfilling life. CA
PRO
yang Chaoqing
Media commentator It is a good policy. Currently， many young people live away from their parents， leaving the latter unattended and desolate. The reasons are not just economic pressure and cramped living quarters， but also differences in the values and lifestyles of the two generations.
With the approach of old age， senior people need emotional support. In Chinese culture， a family means people sharing not only physical proximity but also psychological intimacy. The policy aims to encourage young people to live with their parents. They will get concrete benefits from the tax cut. This kind of public policy has both moral and practical value since the virtue of filial piety gets support at the institutional level and is encouraged with concrete benefits. CA
COn
mu Xuchong
Media commentator Offering tax reductions to people who live with their aged parents is a policy with good intentions. Theoretically， it would increase a family’s income and alleviate the economic pressure coming from supporting elderly parents. The issue is whether it is in line with the principle of fairness. Families with high incomes are also eligible to enjoy the tax reduction. So in the end， the policy will subsidize the rich while ignoring the economically vulnerable. And it is those economically vulnerable families who cannot afford to live together with their parents. In this sense， I don’t think it is a good policy.
To encourage people to care for older people’s emotional needs， the government should make policies that are universally applicable. Two factors prevent young people from providing such care. The first is lack of time. In response， the government should support companies to extend employees’ paid leave. The second is economic pressure. The vulnerable group should be given special considerations in this regard. I think the government can subsidize the rents paid by migrant families who invite their elderly parents to live with them. Besides， the government should also play its due role in caring for the old by providing better public services and improving the pension system. CA
PRO
yuan guangkuo
Media commentator Obviously， the regulation aims to encourage children to live with their parents so that they can play a better role in providing material and mental support and care for the old. The tax reduction offered by the government is actually a kind of subsidy to those who care for the elderly by living with them. It will lessen young people’s economic burden.
Currently， a lot of young people will not spend a lot of time with their parents because of various reasons. Single adults are tired of parents’ nagging and prefer to enjoy a free life without parental surveillance. The married ones worry about domestic disputes and difficult relations with mothers-in-law. Living on their own sets the younger generation free but leaves aging parents unattended， especially from the emotional perspective.
As a guiding regulation， the policy will inspire young people to show filial piety and guarantee that the elderly receive better care. The regulation is of great practical significance on the premise that families play the biggest role in providing for their elders. CA
COn
Qiao Xuan
Employee in Beijing The regulation is actually a moral bind that restricts people’s right to freedom of choice. On the one hand， with the development of the economy， many senior people are self-sufficient both financially and emotionally. My parents， for example， prefer to live by themselves rather than sharing the same roof with me because they want to have more personal space and their own social life.
On the other hand， when children grow up， and especially after they get married， they may have a lot of differences from the older generation on lifestyle concepts. As most of us live on our salaries， we cannot afford a big house where the two generations can live together and still have their privacy. Excessive proximity will be unavoidable and will eventually cause domestic disputes. Absence， on the other hand， makes the heart grow fonder. In my opinion， living separately but making frequent visits is much better for a harmonious relationship between the two generations.
There are many ways to support your parents. Living together may not be the best way. People can choose the most suitable approach according to each family’s circumstances. CA COn
zi Xi
It seems the regulation is a win-win solution as it encourages a traditional virtue and relieves people of their economic burden at the same time. But I don’t think it is appropriate to relate filial piety to a utilitarian purpose. Loving and dutiful children will visit their parents regularly and take care of their emotional needs though they cannot live together due to many reasons， such as a busy work schedule or financial incapability. Many people do not want to live away from their parents but have to do so. So simply offering a tax rebate will not solve the problem.
For those who don’t want to live with their parents but have the means to do so may choose to live with them， tempted by the thought of getting their taxes reduced. But then living under the same roof solely due to a utilitarian purpose is just pro forma action and does not indicate sincere caring. Such an arrangement would only lead to domestic disputes and inconvenience for both the generations. CA