100 Pay Only 1.5 Use Expert Advice To Abolish Housing Provident Fund

At present, most of the stories are deduced from housing prices, and the related housing provident fund is also thrived.

This time, we are concerned about the use ratio of housing provident fund.

It is reported that the proportion of housing provident fund used in Beijing accounted for only about 1.5% of the workers in 2015.

That is to say, 100 people who pay the housing provident fund, only 1.5 people are using the housing provident fund, which will greatly reduce the efficiency of the housing provident fund.

In fact, in the past few years, many government departments and institutions and some large and medium-sized state-owned enterprises have the ability to build houses or to allocate housing resources from related parties, so that the housing of their employees can be guaranteed or allocated to welfare housing, "said Hainan, vice president of the Chinese Labor Association.

This causes the current part of the unit and its staff to pay the housing provident fund, enjoying the treatment of housing provident fund but no longer need to buy a house.

Statistics show that in 2015, the total amount of housing provident fund was 1 trillion and 454 billion 946 million yuan, an increase of 12.29% over the previous year.

In terms of the number of people in charge, staff and staff members of state organs and public institutions and state-owned enterprises accounted for 60.16%, far exceeding the "half of the country".

But many private enterprises do not pay housing provident fund to employees, is it illegal? Data show that private enterprises have created about 60% of GDP and absorb about 80% of the social employment.

These data show that most of the private enterprises have not paid the housing provident fund to their employees.

However, in accordance with the regulations on the management of housing provident fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), private enterprises should also pay housing provident fund to workers.

The unit does not register for housing provident fund registration or does not set up procedures for the housing provident fund accounts for its employees. The thirty-seventh provision of the Regulations stipulates that the housing provident fund management center shall be ordered to handle the matter within a specified time limit, and if it fails to do so, it will be fined more than 10 thousand yuan or less than 50 thousand yuan.

As a matter of fact, we seldom see the case that a private enterprise is forced to enforce the housing provident fund by the court.

In addition to income instability, management and other reasons, private enterprises do not pay housing provident fund is closely related to the production and operation of private enterprises.

In order to reduce the pressure of enterprises, the policy has been clear in the first half of this year. For some enterprises with difficulty in operation, they can delay payment, reduce the proportion of payment and suspend the payment of housing provident fund.

As an important part of China's new housing system, housing provident fund is considered to be one of the core parts of building China's housing security system. It is also a key financial support for housing security and a housing finance system with Chinese characteristics.

At present, the staff and workers of government organs and state-owned enterprises are the main beneficiaries of housing provident fund, and only a small number of workers in private enterprises are beneficiaries of housing provident fund, which virtually widen the income gap between residents.

However, Zhang Xin, who worked in a certain institution, did not consider himself a high-income person.

She told reporters that her current level is at the top level, but the monthly salary is only 8000 yuan.

In addition to supporting a family, there are not enough money left for her.

It is also a great income.

"The income of state-owned enterprises, central enterprises, especially the financial sector is much higher than ours. The housing provident fund is also much higher than ours. They are real high-income earners."

Zhang Xin said that it is not reasonable to put organs and public institutions together with some high-income state-owned enterprises in a general way.

Nevertheless, Zhang Xin is lucky compared with the lower income of the majority of private enterprises, after all, in the public institutions, wages are dry and waterlogging.

Therefore, the urgent matter is how to solve the problem of low housing fund coverage and unfair income distribution.

Xu Xun, the director and senior economist of the national policy science research association, put forward his view. "On the one hand, we should standardize the deposit level of the organs and institutions and the employees of state-owned enterprises, so as to avoid the housing provident fund becoming a special kind."

On the other hand, we should treat private enterprises as the focus of expanding housing fund coverage.

Only by allowing more private enterprises and workers to deposit housing provident fund according to regulations can we narrow the income gap caused by housing provident fund.

In addition, we should vigorously reform the scope and formalities of the provident fund in order to make more people enjoy the benefits and conveniences brought by the housing provident fund.

China released by Beijing Normal University in August 5th

The research report shows that the cost of labor in China has risen in recent years, and the fastest growing one is the housing provident fund. Moreover, the housing accumulation fund is mainly in monopoly industries and high-income earners, and the low income industry and ordinary workers have not been equally benefited, which leads to unfair income distribution.

Therefore, the report recommends "abolish notable growth and bring about unfair housing accumulation fund system".

However, some scholars opposed the abolition of housing provident fund.

Provident fund belongs to private property.

The first provision of the regulation "General Provisions" third stipulates: "the housing provident fund deposited by the workers and employees and the housing provident fund paid by the workers and staff members for the workers belong to the employees."

Su Hainan believes that personal payment is part of personal property and can not be moved. Part of the unit's deposit is also owned by individuals according to the regulations, but this system is defective.

As a matter of fact, the rich units and the rich individuals add more money to the personal provident fund. Those who have no money or no money are no one to send charcoal in the snow. This unreasonable interest relationship needs to be broken.