Recently, Huang, vice chairman of China International Economic Exchange Center, suggested that the "provident fund" with China characteristics should be transformed into an enterprise annuity system and put into the market to benefit employees, enterprises and the country. In February this year, Huang put forward a proposal to develop the economy and restore the manufacturing industry, and suggested canceling the enterprise housing provident fund system to directly reduce the cost of enterprises and employees 12%.
In the interview, CBN found that both academics and ordinary people have different attitudes towards provident fund. Scholars have put forward many problems of the current provident fund system from the perspective of fairness and efficiency, such as subsidies for buying a house without buying a house, short-term interest on long-term deposits and so on. However, most of them still do not advocate direct abolition, but suggest reforming the existing provident fund system. Huang's proposal of merging with enterprise annuity is one of the schemes, and others are changed to voluntary payment and expanded coverage.
For those who have a provident fund, canceling the provident fund means more welfare losses. For example, some people enjoy the low interest rate of provident fund loans, and they can use the provident fund to offset the loans. Some people withdraw the provident fund once to offset the down payment when buying a house. For another example, it has become increasingly simple for cities such as Shenzhen to rent a house and withdraw the provident fund. People who have not bought a house can also conveniently withdraw the provident fund to supplement the rent.
However, it is undeniable that the provident fund system does have various drawbacks as Huang said. He believes that the low efficiency, high consumption and unfairness of social capital operation caused by the deposit of 14.6 trillion provident fund gradually appear, thus forcing us to find a more effective path to establish a new and alternative "provident fund cycle" for individuals, enterprises and countries.
Provident fund: a "deserved" public welfare.
Huang said that after 30 years of development, China residents have regarded provident fund as a well-deserved public welfare.
According to the Annual Report of National Housing Provident Fund 20 18 issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and other three ministries and commissions (hereinafter referred to as the Annual Report), since the establishment of the provident fund system for more than 20 years, a total of 33,348,200 individual housing loans have been issued, and a total of 879,648 million yuan of housing provident fund has been withdrawn. In 2065438+2008, the number of people withdrawing housing provident fund was 5 1955800, accounting for 35.99% of the paid-in employees.
According to the provisions of the provident fund, the contribution ratio of employees and unit housing provident fund shall not be less than 5% and shall not be higher than 12%. Different regions and units of different nature have different payment ratios, but the basic principle is that the unit will make up as much as the individual pays, and the proportion is the same or higher, and the part paid by the unit is what everyone thinks is welfare. And this part of the money is paid before tax, and both individuals and units can enjoy tax-free treatment.
Chen Dan, a primary school teacher in Shaanxi, told the First Financial Reporter that the provident fund has greatly reduced the pressure on her to buy a house. Her contribution to the provident fund is 6%, with an individual contribution of 326 yuan per month, a unit contribution of 12% and a monthly contribution of 653 yuan. In 20 17, she borrowed 400,000 yuan at the interest rate of 3.25% and bought a house with 570,000 yuan. Now she pays back 2,000 yuan every month, of which 979 yuan can be offset by the provident fund, and only needs to pay back more than 1000 per month.
When asked if he was willing to cancel the provident fund, Chen Dan made it clear that he was unwilling. "Although the unit pays more than 600 yuan per month, it is only' Mao Mao Rain', but it will be gone if it is cancelled, and it will not enjoy the low interest rate of provident fund loans."
According to the annual report, the provident fund system has played a role in meeting the housing needs of low-income and young people. The data shows that in the number of individual housing loans issued in 20 18 years, low-and middle-income groups accounted for 95.73%, the first housing loans accounted for 85.9 1%, ordinary housing loans below 144 (inclusive) accounted for 89.45%, and loan employees under 40 (inclusive) accounted for 72.76%.
Wang Yong, who works in a public institution in Shenzhen, told the First Financial Reporter that due to the high housing prices in Shenzhen and the insufficient amount of provident fund loans, young people around him don't pay much attention to the low-interest benefits of provident fund loans, but want to supplement the down payment with the funds in the provident fund account.
Wang Yong's unit pays the provident fund according to the highest payment ratio, and the individual pays 2,800 yuan per month and the unit pays 2,800 yuan. Because it is more convenient for Shenzhen to withdraw the provident fund, for him who does not buy a house, what he values is the 2800 yuan issued by the unit. Many young people around him took out the provident fund in the name of renting a house.
Relatively speaking, it is convenient to withdraw provident fund in big cities such as Shenzhen, but there are many restrictions on withdrawing provident fund in many parts of the country. Chen Dan said that some local people will sign fake renovation contract with decoration companies in order to withdraw the provident fund. Throughout the country, it is not uncommon for underground intermediaries to charge high fees to withdraw provident fund for others.
For those who don't buy a house, rent a house or decorate, the money in the provident fund can't be collected until retirement, and their share of the money has a huge efficiency loss under the pressure of inflation. According to the characteristics of "low deposit and low loan" in China's provident fund system, the personal account of housing provident fund only pays the interest on one-year deposits, while most people's funds have to be kept for decades, so long-term deposits and short-term interest cannot realize the appreciation and preservation of funds.
When asked if he was willing to cancel the provident fund system, Wang Yong said that for those who don't need provident fund loans, it is actually better for the unit to directly issue housing subsidies than the provident fund system. Because in order to get the unit subsidy of 2800 yuan per month, his own salary will be deducted by 2800 yuan, and his income will be reduced. "In order to get back the 2,800 yuan of the unit, I have to go to the provident fund center to go through various procedures. I don't think it is necessary. "
Su Jian, director of Peking University National Economic Research Center, told CBN that the housing provident fund is tax-free. If renting a house can be easily taken out, it is equivalent to giving everyone a welfare without paying taxes. If the housing provident fund is abolished, it will reduce the disposable personal income of ordinary people.
Provident fund reform has not yet been put on the agenda.
In recent years, with some drawbacks of the housing provident fund system gradually exposed, there are more and more disputes about the retention or abolition of the provident fund system. As early as 20 15, Dong Dengxin, director of the Institute of Finance and Securities of Wuhan University of Science and Technology, proposed to merge housing provident fund, enterprise annuity and occupational annuity into one system. Yang Weimin, deputy director of the Economic Committee of China People's Political Consultative Conference, repeatedly called for the gradual abolition of the compulsory housing provident fund, the gradual change of the compulsory housing provident fund into voluntary deposits, and the establishment of policy-oriented housing financial institutions for reform at the Lujiazui Forum on 20 18.
Dong Dengxin participated in the policy discussion on amending the Provident Fund Regulations from 20 12 to 20 14. At that time, experts pointed out three major drawbacks of the current provident fund system: first, "low deposit and low loan", and there is no investment custody link for personal account funds, so it is difficult to maintain and increase the value of funds. Second, there is a paradox between the mutual aid nature of housing provident fund and the ownership of personal account. The funds in personal account can be lent to others without the consent of the owner, which is difficult to explain in law. Third, for people who have a house or don't need to buy a house, they can't withdraw their account balance until they retire. The Housing Provident Fund Regulations did not explain this.
Some people also question why there are restrictions on the withdrawal of provident funds, and the provident funds are paid by themselves. The answer given by Yan 'an Housing Provident Fund Center in Shaanxi Province is that the housing provident fund must be earmarked. When employees do not use the housing provident fund, the funds in their accounts can be transferred to employees who meet the loan conditions of the housing provident fund, which reflects the mutual assistance characteristics of the housing provident fund. If every employee has no housing consumption behavior, but wants to withdraw the housing provident fund, where does the provident fund loan fund below the commercial loan interest rate come from?
Huang believes that the original intention of China's provident fund policy is to solve the housing difficulties of employees, which has certain characteristics of the times. When the cycle of commercial housing market has been formed, the initial mission of provident fund has been basically completed, and its function of providing low-interest loans for people to buy houses can be completely solved by commercial banks or the establishment of special housing banks.
Huang suggested that reforming the existing provident fund system and establishing a new annuity system will not reduce the public welfare of the people, but will bring greater property appreciation to the people. Because the operation of annuity can enter the capital market and generate higher income through maintaining and increasing value.
At present, the interest rate of the provident fund is about 1.5% according to the national one-year deposit rate, after deducting the operation and management costs of each provident fund center, while the Singapore provident fund requires an interest rate of not less than 2.5%. The annuity interest rate is generally 5% ~ 6%, and the American annuity interest rate is generally around 7%.
Feng Pengcheng, deputy general manager of the Health Insurance Division of Taikang Pension Insurance Co., Ltd., told the First Financial Reporter that although China's housing provident fund system was learned from Singapore, it is very different from Singapore. Singapore's provident fund system has a high income (above 4%) to ensure the preservation and appreciation. Therefore, he suggested opening accounts such as provident fund, employee medical insurance account balance and personal part of enterprise annuity, and introducing market-oriented operation to achieve stable and high returns.
From the perspective of comprehensive social security reform, Dong Dengxin put forward a set of social security reform plan, that is, the three systems of housing provident fund, enterprise annuity and occupational annuity were merged into one system, and the two small types of insurance, maternity insurance and work injury insurance, were merged into medical insurance, realizing the integration of "five insurances and three golds" into "three insurances and one gold", collectively called "compulsory provident fund", which required all enterprises to pay. The combined rate will be much lower than the current total rate of Sanjin, thus reducing the burden on enterprises.
Su Jian said that to solve the problems existing in the current provident fund is to change compulsory payment into voluntary payment. In the case of fixed total wages, the enterprise and employees will decide whether to pay the provident fund through voluntary consultation. Because of legal tax avoidance, enterprises and employees will of course be willing to take part of their wages as provident fund.
CBN also learned from people familiar with the matter that although the debate about provident fund is very hot, the reform of provident fund has not been included in the agenda of policy makers. The top management has been paying attention to the reform of provident fund, mainly from the perspective of reducing the burden on enterprises. If there is no suitable plan to reduce the burden on enterprises, it is difficult to make substantial progress in the reform of provident fund.