The housing accumulation fund system was exploded, and the management was chaotic, opaque and wasteful, which once again surprised the public about the management and efficiency of public institutions. We can't help asking: Is the housing provident fund system really necessary?

The essence of housing provident fund is wages.

Some officials said that there are hundreds of housing provident fund management systems in China, which is an amazing waste, and the controversial housing provident fund management system is once again questioned by the public because of its rationality.

According to the current Regulations on the Management of Housing Provident Fund, housing provident fund is a long-term housing savings paid by units and employees, and the ownership belongs to individual employees.

At the same time, employees and units pay housing provident fund for employees, which is determined according to a certain proportion of the salary level of employees in the previous year. It can be seen that the provident fund comes from employees' wages, so the actual essence of the provident fund is wages, or the income from employees' labor remuneration.

According to the relevant regulations of the finance and taxation department, the housing provident fund actually paid by units and individuals can be tax-free within the range of 12% of the average monthly salary of employees in the previous year.

Therefore, further, the housing provident fund is the personal salary paid by employees to government departments, which is tax-free and compulsory centralized management.

The principal-agent relationship has no realistic demand basis.

Because the housing provident fund is managed by employees to the housing provident fund management center, the problem of principal-agent appears at this time.

Principal-agent problem refers to the separation of ownership and control of housing provident fund. After the client (owner and employee) entrusts the agent (housing provident fund management center) to manage the housing provident fund, the manager has a series of moral hazard problems due to the lack of effective supervision means.

For example, the housing provident fund management center is decentralized, inefficient and lacking in external audit. Is this because the money belongs to the local government to some extent? Small vault? No one wants to be managed as a whole; For another example, because the management expenses are extracted from the value-added income of the provident fund, the provident fund management center will definitely budget? Waste? For example, there are hundreds of expensive provident fund management systems in China.

We can observe the confusion of provident fund management from one side: due to the fragmentation of provident fund management centers around the country, the overall data management is difficult, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development has not updated the data since it issued the national housing provident fund management bulletin in 2008.

(The picture above shows that the scale of the national housing provident fund in 2008 is enough to compare with today's joint-stock commercial banks. )

However, when we look back and think about the principal-agent problem of housing provident fund, we will find that this principal-agent relationship has no basis for practical needs.

Principal-agent theory originated from specialized division of labor: because agents have more information, more ability and higher professional vision in specialized division of labor, and the time, energy and ability of clients are limited, they sign contracts with agents and entrust them to make profits for themselves.

In reality, the agent (provident fund management center) has no clear goal of making profits for the client. The provident fund management center takes the provident fund in one hand and lends money in the other. It is positioned as a non-profit organization with low value-added income.

The principal who plays a major role in the principal-agent relationship, that is, the owner of the housing provident fund, is the most practical demand and the most common small advertisement in the streets? How to take out the housing accumulation fund smoothly and realize your own labor remuneration? From this point of view, the housing provident fund system has lost the basis of entrusted demand.

? Teacher? Singapore's provident fund system is controversial.

It is generally believed that China's provident fund system is modelled on that of Singapore. However, as a representative of the city-state economy, can Singapore's system meet the real needs of the world's second largest economy?

Recently, Singapore's provident fund system has also encountered controversy. According to Xinhua News Agency, at the end of May, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong filed a libel lawsuit against blogger Yin Yilin. In a blog post, Yin Yilin insinuated that Lee Hsien Loong had misappropriated the provident fund paid by local residents. It is also reported that it was put forward at a fine collection meeting convened by Yin Yilin? Pay back our provident fund? The slogan received a positive response from the society, with about 2,000 participants.

When Singapore became independent in the 1950s, nearly 80% of its residents had no housing or lived in slums. Through the strong intervention of the central government in the housing market, including the implementation of government housing units and provident fund system, as well as the rapid economic development, most housing problems have been solved in recent decades.

However, Singapore's provident fund system has also encountered the above challenges, such as the low rate of return of provident fund, the need to improve transparency, the difficulty in using the provident fund owned by residents, and the necessity of compulsory savings by the state.

These challenges are similar to those in China. But in addition to these, we still have problems such as decentralized provident fund and difficult centralized management. Do we spend more money to repair an imperfect system, or is there another way?

Housing subsidies replace the provident fund system.

What are the benefits of buying a house with provident fund? First, some income can be tax-free, and second, lower loan interest can be obtained. If we say the disadvantages of the provident fund system, one is the waste of management costs of the provident fund center, the other is the corruption of embezzlement and misappropriation of the provident fund, and the third is the reduction of residents' current consumption.

The use of housing subsidies can realize the benefits of buying a house with provident fund and avoid the disadvantages of the provident fund system.

There are many ways of housing subsidies, including the most common in-kind subsidies, price subsidies and monetary subsidies. In-kind subsidy is the so-called room ticket, and low-income people can have almost free public rental housing; Price subsidies can be house purchase subsidies, discount interest, tax exemption, etc. , similar to the current housing provident fund concessions; Direct payment of monetary subsidies. For example, in the first half of 2004, Sanya distributed a price subsidy of 2065438+220 million yuan to 620,000 residents.

Low-income people have low income, high basic consumption expenditure and a strong propensity to consume, so it is unreasonable to implement national compulsory savings. In order to guide them to save for a long time, we can use price to guide them to save. For example, the operation of a market-oriented housing insurance fund provides a high rate of return and a certain degree of liquidity. For example, residents can enjoy tax exemption and interest reduction if they take out funds to borrow money to buy houses.

Conclusion: Housing accumulation fund is a system with high operating cost, and we can replace it with lower-cost methods to let people enjoy more benefits. (Wang Leyan/Wen)

;