With the opening of the National People's Congress, more hot topics have attracted the attention of the public. In the field of real estate industry, in addition to people's concern about when the real estate tax will be introduced, the proposal of canceling the provident fund put forward by some deputies has also become a hot topic.

The proposal to cancel the provident fund was first put forward by Huang, vice chairman of China International Economic Exchange Center and former mayor of Chongqing, in February this year. The direct reason put forward is to help solve the survival problems of small and medium-sized enterprises brought about by the epidemic and reduce the cost of enterprises.

Huang pointed out: "China's real estate has long been market-oriented, and commercial banks have become the main providers of mortgage loans. The existence of housing provident fund is of little significance. Cancellation can directly reduce the cost of enterprises and employees 12%. "

A stone stirs up a thousand waves. In this year's proposals of the two sessions, some deputies suggested canceling or reducing the provident fund.

For example, on May 2 1 day, Yao Jinbo, deputy to the National People's Congress and founder of 58 City, published three written suggestions. He said that the biggest difficulty facing the recovery of small and medium-sized enterprises under the epidemic situation is that they can't make ends meet, and the cost of enterprises, especially labor, is high and their income is reduced. Therefore, it is suggested that the deposit ratio of housing provident fund should be appropriately lowered from the minimum deposit of 5% to 3%, so as to effectively reduce the employment pressure of enterprises.

In addition, Dong Mingzhu, deputy to the National People's Congress and chairman and president of Gree Electric, also said in an interview with the media that he agreed with Huang's point of view and cancelled the provident fund. "We built a house, why should we give the provident fund?" She also said that the provident fund that enterprises bought for employees took away when employees left, and enterprises bought nothing, which should reduce the burden on enterprises. "

To sum up these voices in favor of abolishing provident fund, there are roughly the following reasons. The most obvious and direct thing is to reduce the operating costs of enterprises, most of which come from entrepreneurs' representatives; Secondly, China's existing provident fund system has limitations. For example, in first-and second-tier cities, the loan amount cannot meet the loan demand when buying a house, but commercial loans are still the mainstream, which leads to the existence of provident fund becoming a "chicken rib"; In addition, the provident fund system also hinders the realization of social equity.

From the perspective of social equity, the view in favor of abolishing the provident fund is that the beneficiaries of the provident fund are the dominant groups, further widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The Annual Report of National Housing Provident Fund 20 18 jointly issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank shows that 44,523,900 employees have been paid by state organs and institutions, accounting for 30.84%. State-owned enterprises paid 29.2823 million employees' provident fund, accounting for 20.28%; Urban private enterprises and other urban enterprises paid 44,498,500 employees, accounting for 30.82%. It can be seen that the first two account for more than 50%, which is the main force to pay the provident fund. In the private economy that contributes 80% of employment, the proportion of paying provident fund is low. In addition, the proportion of personal provident fund deposit is closely related to income, and high-income groups also enjoy a higher proportion of provident fund deposit and benefit more.

From this perspective, the existing provident fund system does have some drawbacks and should be reformed. However, the author believes that it is not yet time to completely cancel the provident fund, whether because of the defects of the provident fund system or because of the burden reduction of the epidemic.

The author believes that for ordinary people, the provident fund system is still the most extensive welfare related to house purchase, and the state and enterprises contribute equal funds to support employees to buy houses, which will help alleviate their pressure on house purchase. Especially in terms of loans, the interest rate of provident fund loans is significantly lower than that of commercial loans, which is also conducive to further reducing the housing costs of employees.

Chen Huai, director of the Department of Urban and Rural Construction Economics of the Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and former director of the Policy Research Center of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, said in an interview with the media that simply canceling the provident fund and reducing the burden on enterprises is nothing more than increasing the risks of ordinary people, which is absolutely against the interests of ordinary people.

On May 2 1, Zheng Bingwen, member of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and director of the World Social Security Research Center of China Academy of Social Sciences, also said in an interview with the media that from the perspective of efficiency and fairness, the performance of the housing provident fund is not bad, which has played a role in alleviating the housing difficulties of employees, and its historical mission has not ended. In addition, Zheng Bingwen is also worried that the abolition of the provident fund system may mean that some government agencies will return to welfare housing distribution, which will be even more unfair.

From this point of view, there are some problems in the provident fund system, and it is even more necessary to promote reform, rather than abolishing it "across the board" under the banner of relieving private enterprises.

In fact, there are many ideas for provident fund reform, such as increasing the amount of provident fund loans in first-and second-tier cities; At the same time, strengthen mutual recognition and circulation of provident funds between regions and cities; In addition, it can also increase the scope of withdrawal and application of provident fund.

In the proposal, Zheng Bingwen also gave four suggestions for reforming the provident fund system: First, improve the overall planning level, strengthen inter-regional integration, and improve the rate of return; Second, the whole system was transformed into a national housing provident fund management company and became an independent legal person of non-bank financial institutions; Thirdly, it is reorganized into the National Housing Bank (the idea of China Postal Savings Bank); The fourth is to merge with enterprise annuity.

In fact, while proposing to cancel the provident fund, Huang also proposed to reform the existing provident fund system and establish a new annuity system, which will not reduce the public welfare of ordinary people. It is pointed out that after the abolition of provident fund, the 6% provident fund originally paid by enterprises for employees will be converted into 6% enterprise annuity paid by enterprises, while the 6% annuity paid by individual employees is not mandatory, and employees can decide whether to pay it voluntarily.

Therefore, the author believes that the provident fund system is in urgent need of reform, but it is not yet time to cancel the provident fund. If the provident fund is really cancelled because of the defects of the existing provident fund system, then it is even more necessary to introduce corresponding alternatives to ensure that the interests of ordinary people are not harmed.