Employee Benefits: Housing Provident Fund Policy Can Not Remain Unchanged.

The whole nation

The annual report of 2015 shows that during the period of "12th Five-Year", the contribution of housing provident fund was 5 trillion and 700 billion yuan and an annual increase of 15.74%. However, while the amount of housing provident fund was increased year by year, the proportion of its use was negligible, for example, in Beijing, the proportion of housing provident fund in Beijing in 2015 accounted for only about 1.5% of the workers.

The original "poor" (to help low-income families buy housing) obvious attribute of housing provident fund, after more than 20 years of implementation throughout the country, the fact is not only far away from the original intention of "poverty relief", but also caused the current "confusion between the rich and the poor".

This policy dilemma, which has backfired, has caused some scholars to call for "abolition of housing provident fund" in successive years.

The abolition is obviously unnecessary, because the housing provident fund is backfired.

It has nothing to do with the original intention, but a serious imbalance between house price growth and income growth over the past 20 years.

It should be said that in the early period of the promulgation of the "housing provident fund management conditions", its positive role is undeniable. It really helped many low-income families to dream of housing. The reason is that the housing price income is relatively low. Even in the first and second tier cities, the ratio of house price to income is generally maintained at less than 10.

However, since 2000, housing prices and income growth have become increasingly unbalanced. For residents' housing, the weight factor of housing provident fund has become smaller and smaller. In the past 16 years, housing prices in general have increased by more than 10 times in the first and second tier cities, while the disposable income of the same period has increased by only 5 times. In some cities (such as Shenzhen), the housing price to income ratio has even been as high as 70. The serious imbalance between house price growth and income growth will inevitably lead to the so-called policy of the housing accumulation fund. Only the high-income group with the ability to purchase housing can enjoy it, while the vast majority of the middle and low income groups can only sigh for it.

Specifically, first of all, for the vast majority of people who can not enjoy the housing provident fund policy preferences, after the comprehensive consideration, the policy of "regular withdrawal" should be launched as soon as possible. Otherwise, the housing provident fund paid by these groups will not only indirectly subsidize the "rich people", but also will produce a very obvious waste for the housing provident fund, which accounts for trillions of yuan, because the annual interest rate of the housing provident fund is much lower than that of the same period.

。

Secondly, under the serious low proportion of housing provident fund, it is necessary for us to expand the coverage of provident fund policy to a certain extent and not to be confined to the housing sector forever.

In this regard, Singapore is experienced. After the real estate market is more saturated, Singapore has already extended its policy coverage to education, pportation and other fields. Its provident fund policy has become a social welfare account for every citizen.