In a proposal of this years two sessions, Zheng Bingwen suggested that the reform of provident fund should be accelerated, rather than waste food because of choking. The ideas are as follows: first, to improve the overall planning level, strengthen inter regional mutual financing and exchange, and improve the rate of return; second, to restructure as a national housing fund management company as a whole, to become an independent legal persons non bank financial institution; third, to restructure as a national housing bank; Fourth It refers to the idea of Singapores central provident fund and the enterprise annuity.
Disputes over the saving and abolishing of provident fund
In February this year, Huang Qifan, vice president of China International Economic Exchange Center and former mayor of Chongqing, wrote that in addition to tax and other policies, he proposed to abolish the system of enterprise housing accumulation fund, so as to directly reduce the cost of enterprises by 12%.
He believes that the housing accumulation fund system was learned from Singapore in the early 1990s. Now Chinas real estate has been marketized, and commercial banks have become the main providers of housing loans. The existence of housing accumulation fund is of little significance.
A stone stirs a thousand waves. The proposal sparked a lot of controversy. Liu Qiao and Zhang Zheng, professors of finance, Peking University, published the signed article why do we oppose the policy proposal of Abolishing the enterprise housing fund system ? u300bTo refute. According to the article, Abolishing the system of enterprise housing accumulation fund is an inappropriate, or even a bad policy proposal, which can not really reduce the burden of enterprises in the extraordinary period, but also will destroy the normal market rules and order, and bring a series of unnecessary negative impacts to economic life.
The article holds that the accumulation fund is compulsory to be paid to the employee account as housing wage, is tax-free wage, and is an important manifestation of employee welfare.. No matter from the perspective of enterprises or employees, housing accumulation fund is a part of employees labor remuneration. .
Dong Mingzhu, President of Gree, and Lou Jiwei, chairman of the global wealth management forum and former Minister of the Ministry of finance of China, later publicly expressed their support for the cancellation of provident fund. But also to the accumulation fund system of the discussion, add a fire.
In fact, the view of abolishing the housing accumulation fund system has existed for a long time. Supporters believe that the housing provident fund system has completed its historical mission, and there are problems in the system fairness, and the cancellation can reduce the burden of enterprises; opponents believe that the cancellation of housing provident fund means that the cake of working class has been moved.
Zheng Bingwen, member of the National Committee of the CPPCC and director of the world social security research center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that the issue of housing accumulation fund has once again become a hot topic. Some people think that the housing accumulation fund system is unfair and advocate the abolition of the housing accumulation fund, which has completed its historical mission. In my opinion, the evaluation of housing fund should be based on efficiency and fairness.
In terms of system efficiency, Zheng Bingwen believes that:
First, the benefit rate of provident fund is relatively high. Since the establishment of the provident fund system, 33.35 million individual housing loans have been issued in total, of which one third are double employees, that is, about 55 million people have benefited. Of the 144 million actual depositors, 38% have become housing lenders, which is a relatively high proportion.
Second, the average amount of each housing loan of provident fund is up to 400000 yuan. In 2018, 2.53 million individual housing loans were issued, with a total amount of 1.02 trillion yuan, with an average of 400000 yuan per loan. After the down payment was made in the third tier cities, the problem of employees house purchase was basically solved.
Third, the loan granted by CPF in one year can save employees 200 billion interest. The interest rate of provident fund loan is low, 3.25% over five-year period, 1.65-2 percentage points lower than the benchmark interest rate of commercial personal housing loan. For the loan issued in 2018 alone, the interest of employees will be saved by 20.2 billion yuan. Based on the average 10-year loan period, the interest expense of each loan will be saved by 80000 yuan.
Fourth, the administrative cost of provident fund comes from the management fee withdrawn. There are 342 provident fund management centers, 3439 service outlets, and 44000 employees in China. In 2018, the management fee of RMB 11.7 billion was withdrawn, and the comprehensive management cost per billion assets was only RMB 210000. This is a very few self-supporting welfare system in China, while almost all other contributory and non contributory welfare systems are financially supported, even including the National Social Security Fund Council.
In terms of system fairness of provident fund, Zheng Bingwen believes that:
First, the coverage of provident fund has gradually expanded. As of 2018, the number of paid in public accumulation fund is 144 million. In comparable social insurance, except for medical treatment and pension, unemployment insurance covers 196 million people, and maternity insurance covers 204 million people, which are more mandatory than housing accumulation fund. Some other payment systems cover fewer people, for example, the number of people covered by enterprise annuity is less than 24 million.
Second, the proportion of employees paid and deposited by private provident fund enterprises keeps increasing. Among the 144 million depositors, 31% were from government institutions, 20% from state-owned enterprises, 31% from private enterprises, 8% from foreign capital, and the remaining 10% were from non-governmental, collective enterprises and other types of units. In a narrow sense, formal sector employment in China refers to urban corporate institutions and urban collective units, with a total employment of 170 million; in a broad sense, it also refers to 140 million urban private employees, and refers to the private enterprise employees whose business address is located at or above the county level. Unemployment and work-related injury insurance and provident fund mainly cover regular sector employees in a narrow sense, and more than 100 million County Private Enterprises in a broad sense are not included. In 2018, CPF opened 19.9 million new accounts, of which 50% (9.94 million) were private enterprises, indicating that the development trend is further improving.
Third, the transparency of provident fund is very good. The annual report published to the whole society every year has complete information, including the proportion of depositors by unit nature (civil servants, public institutions, state-owned enterprises, collective enterprises, etc.), the withdrawal of provident fund by type (withdrawal reason, number of people, proportion amount), various types of loans (house type, area, number of units, etc.), and the pilot loans for supporting indemnificatory housing construction The situation of payment, business income and expenditure, value-added income, distribution of housing loans and value-added income of each province, and asset risk are the most transparent in the national payment and non payment welfare systems.
From the above two perspectives of efficiency and fairness, the performance of provident fund is not very poor, which has played a role in alleviating housing difficulties for employees, and its historical mission is not over: the central ministries and commissions, governments at all levels in the first, second and third tier cities and public institutions are under great pressure to purchase houses every year, while they are also responsible for the operation of state machinery. To cancel the provident fund means It will be more unfair for them to solve the housing problem and return to welfare housing. Zheng Bingwen pointed out.
Experts say there are four reform ideas
It is worth noting that on the evening of May 18, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the opinions on accelerating the improvement of the socialist market economy system in the new era (hereinafter referred to as the opinions). As a basic institutional arrangement in China, the opinions clearly mentioned in improving the social security system covering the whole people that it is necessary to speed up the establishment of a housing system with multi-body supply, multi-channel security, rent and purchase simultaneously, and reform the housing accumulation fund system.
This means that the central government has set the tone for the dispute over the abolition of the housing accumulation fund system: the housing accumulation fund system may usher in a round of reform rather than abolition.
Zheng Bingwen pointed out in the proposal that there are many problems in the current provident fund, and the biggest problems are two:
First, the rate of return on investment is too low to beat inflation, and the interest rate of the deposit staff is lower;
To this end, he proposed in the proposal that the pace of reform should be accelerated for the provident fund, rather than to stop eating because of choking.
According to Zheng Bingwen, there are four ideas for the reform of provident fund:
The first is to improve the overall planning level, strengthen the inter regional integration and exchange, and improve the rate of return;
The second is to restructure as a whole into a national housing fund management company and become an independent legal persons non bank financial institution (the idea of Fannie and Freddie and Geely);
The third is to reorganize into the National Housing Bank (the thinking of China Post Savings Bank);
The fourth is the merger with enterprise annuity (the idea of Singapore Central Provident Fund).
Source: responsible editor of 21st century economic report: Wang Xiaowu_ NF