Some economists have pointed out that China's real estate has long been market-oriented, commercial banks have become the main body of providing mortgage loans, and the existence of housing provident fund is of little significance. Under the influence of the current epidemic situation, enterprises should cancel the provident fund system, so as to reduce the burden on enterprises by up to 12%.

As soon as this view came out, there was a lot of controversy, and some people thought it would be harmful to the interests of enterprises and employees. However, after that, this person repeatedly pointed out that the current comprehensive expenses of five insurances and one gold in our state-owned enterprises and institutions reached 55%, of which the provident fund was 12%, and more than one trillion yuan had to be paid in a year. At present, China has reached a total scale of 14.6 trillion yuan. If this 14.6 trillion yuan provident fund is directly converted into enterprise annuities to realize the optimal allocation of resources, it will be enough to supplement the social endowment insurance fund.

In this regard, most netizens have different attitudes.

Some people think that the abolition of provident fund is strongly opposed. As ordinary people or ordinary wage earners, if we want to buy a house loan, we can really realize that provident fund loans are not only lower than commercial loans, but also enjoy many tangible invisible benefits.

Some people also think that the retention or abolition of the provident fund system is an economic account, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The key is how to connect the relevant links and systems. However, the relevant departments in China said that there is no clear indication and specific policy for the retention and abolition of provident fund to cooperate with the relevant economic system in China. Some netizens also pointed out that most provident funds have become one of the benefits of a few people buying a house. The scope of use of provident funds is too small, and it is very difficult to withdraw non-purchase houses. The monthly withholding leads to a decline in disposable income, which affects purchasing power and consumer confidence.

If we deduct 1 yuan every month to buy 1 yuan now, I'm afraid that will not be able to buy what 1 yuan can buy in five years' time, and it should not be mandatory for employees who have houses to choose to pay voluntarily.

To sum up the netizens' views, canceling the provident fund will cause potential and hidden harm to most people buying houses, but relevant economists in China have also given three solutions:

Some economists think that it is better to cancel the provident fund and use this large sum of money for consumption and enterprise development. As soon as this statement came out, it caused heated discussions and doubts among many different social groups.

first of all, let's see from the root whether it has brought tangible benefits to employees of enterprises and institutions since the establishment of the provident fund system in China.

China's provident fund system was originally learned from Singapore, the four little dragons in Asia. At the beginning, China's reference was also very simple. I hope that through this compulsory payment method, the government, enterprises and employees will be brought together to solve the problem of people buying houses.

in the 199s, "stop housing allocation and implement housing reform". At that time, the system design was mainly to establish and improve the housing supply system based on affordable housing. The specific assumption was that high-income people bought commercial housing, provided affordable housing to middle-income people and provided low-rent housing to the lowest income people. Now, in the past 2 years, the real estate market has blossomed everywhere in China, and it has also ushered in three climaxes. Compared with the 199s, today's housing prices are already very different.

according to the data of China's provident fund report, at the end of 218, the market share of individual housing provident fund loans in China was 16.19%, far lower than that of commercial loans. From this simple data, we can see that provident fund loans are still more cost-effective than bank commercial loans in the proportion of housing loans in China, although the proportion is not high.

At present, the interest rate of provident fund for loans of more than five years in China is 3.22%, the interest rate of second-home provident fund loans is 3.75%, while the commercial loans in China are above 4.85%. Under the current policy of restricting purchases and loans in various parts of China, the average interest rate of the first home loan is around 5.5%. If we buy a house in Xi 'an, Qingdao, Chengdu and other new first-tier cities, with a preset loan of 1 million and a 3-year term, the interest saved by using provident fund loans is 48, compared with commercial loans. For ordinary enterprises and institutions working groups or ordinary buyers of supply and demand, the interest of 48, yuan is not a small amount.

When this statement comes out, the opposition of individual consumers is far greater than that of business owners. With the continuous expansion of the scope of provident fund withdrawal, the efficiency of the use of provident fund in China has been significantly improved. In some areas, such as Sichuan, the provident fund can be used not only for buying houses and renovating, but also for medical insurance expenses.

With the increasing flexibility of provident fund withdrawal, residents' willingness to use provident fund is still very high, especially compared with young residents. Therefore, among young people, the interest rate of housing provident fund loans is much lower than that of commercial loans. Therefore, I personally think that under the current conditions, whether China should increase provident fund loans or increase the proportion of provident fund or whether it should cancel the "different areas of provident fund". But generally speaking, enterprises and institutions can really enjoy real profits by purchasing provident fund loans for the first suite. And it is not impossible to cancel the provident fund one day with the transformation of the national economic structure.

we can calculate an account. For enterprises, if the provident fund for employees is simply abolished without other welfare and security systems, it is undoubtedly the biggest beneficiary for enterprises, and the most direct benefit is to reduce costs.

as we all know, individual provident fund is compulsory, and individuals and enterprises pay part of it, and the proportion is less than 5% to 12%. If employees' provident fund is cancelled from enterprises alone, enterprises will directly save 5% to 12% of costs, which is equivalent to 5% to 12% of employees' income reduction. But from the perspective of enterprises, all enterprises that reduce costs are very welcome.

In addition, at present, many private enterprises in China have imperfect personnel and welfare systems. When the enterprises are in poor operation, employees' social security may be cut off. It is better to pay less or not. For ordinary employees, mortgage is our biggest economic pressure at present, and the provident fund loan in mortgage is very low compared with commercial loans, which can reduce the burden of just-needed property buyers.

If the enterprise cancels the provident fund without any financial subsidy, the number of employees in enterprises and institutions who can't afford to buy a house will increase greatly. At the same time, some economists have pointed out that canceling the provident fund is not an end, but to turn the provident fund into an enterprise annuity, aiming to use the funds as long-term funds to activate the capital market. Even after the provident fund is cancelled, 6% of the provident fund paid by the original enterprise to employees will be converted into an enterprise annuity, and the remaining 6% will be paid by individual employees voluntarily, without compulsory.

personally, I think that if employees are unwilling to pay this 6% enterprise annuity, it will be converted into wages, and if this part of wages is converted into the consumer market, it will also promote economic development. If employees voluntarily pay, the annual fund income will be much higher than the housing provident fund income, which also shows that the annual fund is more flexible than the provident fund policy, and it can also be invested in the capital market and the national currency fund market, which is more attractive to the people.

regarding the cancellation of provident fund policy, from the perspective of enterprises, converting about 6% of the cost into huge funds in the capital market can also play a role in leading consumption and expanding the scale of enterprises. If the provident fund is not cancelled, enterprises and institutions will use more provident fund loans under the condition of constant wages, and part of the wages will also flow into personal consumption to promote economic development.

There are two reasons:

For the country, enterprise annuity is a supplementary old-age security system established by enterprises on the basis of participating in the basic old-age insurance. Besides the basic old-age insurance and personal savings, it also constitutes one of the three pillars of the old-age insurance system for enterprise employees in China, but at present, enterprise annuity is the biggest shortcoming in China's old-age insurance system.

personally, I think that if we take provident fund as a long policy board to make up for the biggest shortcoming in China's pension system, it will undoubtedly lead to the policy defects that the short board is shorter and the long board becomes short board.

before the introduction of the policy, "labor pains" were inevitable?

if the provident fund is converted into enterprise annuity one day, it will be beneficial to employees, enterprises and the country from the perspective of national strategic development.

affected by the epidemic, at present, China, such as Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Tianjin and other places, have successively issued policies to allow enterprises in difficulty to reduce the contribution ratio of provident fund or postpone the contribution of provident fund.

the impact of epidemic situation not only affects the pace of China's economic development, but also has a great impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. The increase of enterprise operating costs also means the increase of employee welfare. The impact of the epidemic has disrupted the overall planning of enterprise development, and also caused a sharp decline in the proportion of income of enterprises. When enterprises encounter difficulties, some related enterprises and economists suggest that enterprises can apply for the minimum deposit ratio of basic housing provident fund to 3% in accordance with the law, with a period of no more than 12 months, or apply for seasonal housing provident fund for no more than 12 months. Under the influence of the policy, adjusting the proportion of provident fund deposit according to the actual situation is nothing more than a flexible adjustment buffer policy.

but with all due respect, if we want to cancel the provident fund policy at once, there is no relevant perfect scheme in China at present, and as we all know, enterprise annuity and provident fund are completely different systems. For example, after retirement, enterprise annuity can be withdrawn at one time, or it can be withdrawn in monthly installments within 1 years, but it is completely different from provident fund in function.