On the afternoon of August 17, a reporter from Red Star contacted Professor Hu. He said that the above report is not an expression of his true views, but a misunderstanding. He believes that the state should set up a fund to encourage childbearing, but the money should be borne by the social support fees collected in the past, not everyone has to pay. "The original family planning fine, fined a lot of money, where have you been?"
Hu also explained that for the Dink family, it can be "discouraged" from deducting from the individual tax, rather than collecting the social support of the Dink family alone.
The maternity fund should be borne by social support.
Today, some media published a report entitled "Professor of University of Political Science and Law: Not only Setting up a Maternity Fund but also Taxing Dink", saying that Hu, a professor of China University of Political Science and Law and a core member of the 50-member Forum of China's Pension Finance, believes that in the future, not only can a maternity fund system be set up to encourage childbearing, but also "social support fees" should be levied on Dink families.
In this report, Hu said that developed countries would subsidize fertility in order to encourage fertility, so it was suggested to set up a fertility fund. "People who don't have children have to pay the birth fund. In the past, China carried out family planning, and collected social support from families with extra children. However, children should be encouraged to give birth in the future, and social support payments should be collected from the Dink family in the future. When people are old, it is useless to rely on money alone, but they still need young people and other people's children to take care of them. These Dink families are old and have no offspring, so they will occupy social resources, so they will be taxed in the future. "
The view that "Dink families should be taxed" once again pushed the topic to a hot discussion. On the afternoon of August 17, Red Star journalists contacted Professor Hu of China University of Political Science and Law. He said that the above report is not an expression of his true views, but a misunderstanding. He believes that the state should set up a fund to encourage childbearing, but the money should be borne by the social support fees collected in the past, not everyone has to pay.
"The original family planning fine, fined a lot of money, where have you been?" Hu explained that the idea of setting up a maternity fund was not put forward by him, but by the author of a related signed article published by Xinhua Daily. As for the practice mentioned in the article that "citizens under the age of 40, regardless of gender, have to pay a certain percentage of wages every year", he himself resolutely opposes it, which is wrong.
"Zhang Yimou paid more than 7 million social support, where did the money go? The establishment of a maternity fund should be borne by this money, and the insufficient part can be financially subsidized. " Hu said:
The reporter inquired that on February 7th, 2065438+2004, the Propaganda Department of Wuxi Binhu District Committee announced through the official Weibo that at noon that day, Binhu District Population and Family Planning Bureau received the unplanned birth fee and social support fee of 7487854 yuan paid by Chen Ting and Zhang Yimou. According to the relevant regulations of the state, the Population and Family Planning Bureau of Binhu District of Wuxi City has turned over the above funds to the state treasury.
It is impossible to set up a special "Dink tax"
For the Dink family, Hu said that it is impossible to set up a special Dink tax, but it can be "punished" or "discouraged" from tax deduction. "If the Dink family has no children or old people to raise them, they will deduct less and pay more taxes than others; Families with many children will pay less tax after deducting the cost of raising children. Families with more elderly people should also pay less taxes. " Nonsense, his views are consistent, and he didn't change his mind because he heard the scolding.
In the hot discussion, some netizens suggested that when dealing with related issues, don't always stare at the pockets of ordinary people.
In this regard, Hu explained that personal income tax has been implemented for many years, and families with different support burdens should be treated differently. It is normal for people who don't raise children to pay more taxes than those who raise children. The revised draft tax law also puts forward the concept of "special deduction", including education expenditure.
The low fertility desire lies in the consideration of cost and benefit.
Why do people lack the will to have more children? According to Hu's analysis, the root cause is the concern about costs and benefits. Everyone is more rational. Having a baby requires spending money immediately, buying milk powder, diapers and so on. And I will go to kindergarten soon. If this part of the cost is borne by the state, then many people are willing to have children.
"What are the benefits of the future? I don't know if it's because I grew up, but there are still too many uncertainties, but the cost is realistic and the income is uncertain. This is the most important reason why young people are unwilling to live after cost-benefit analysis. " Nonsense, therefore, on the one hand, we should encourage and on the other hand, we should "discourage" the tax issue, encourage more students and discourage less students. Reducing the cost of raising children can encourage more children.
That's true.