"In order to reduce the financial pressure of the country, it is suggested to set up a compulsory and guaranteed maternity fund system to encourage families to have children. It can be stipulated that citizens under the age of 40, regardless of gender, should pay a certain proportion of their wages every year to enter their personal accounts. When a family gives birth to a second child or more, it can apply for withdrawing the birth fund and receiving the birth allowance to compensate the short-term income loss caused by the interruption of labor during the birth period of women and their families. Citizens who have not given birth to two children will withdraw funds from their accounts when they retire. The maternity fund adopts the pay-as-you-go system, that is, the maternity fund paid by individuals but not yet taken out can be used for the government to issue maternity subsidies to other families, and the insufficient part is subsidized by the state finance. First, it can realize the independent operation of maternity subsidies to a certain extent and reduce the burden of financial subsidies; Second, it can encourage citizens to marry early and have children early, and improve their fertility willingness. "

In order to promote people's fertility desire and increase the fertility rate, we can not only set up a fertility fund to encourage fertility, but also levy social support fees on Dink families.

Once the statement of setting up a maternity fund was published, it caused an uproar and public criticism. Of course, there are few excuses. For example, some people regard it as a common fund of provident fund or a personal account, which can be withdrawn after the age of 40, and the state has no interference; You can also invest in it to solve the problem of maintaining and increasing value.

But are these reasons reliable?

First, the issue of hedging. If, after offsetting the inflation coefficient, the maternity fund can ensure the preservation and appreciation, and can reach or exceed the income of bank wealth management products in the same period, there is no need to impose it in the name of "no second child". Such wealth management products will naturally be delivered to the market. But for the maternity fund system, I'm afraid no one dares to make such a promise.

Secondly, the maternity fund is different from the housing provident fund. There was a time when the housing accumulation fund could only be drawn by buying a house, which was unfair to those who did not intend to buy a house or had no money to buy a house. After renting or decorating, you can withdraw the provident fund to eliminate disputes.

A person rents a house without buying a house, and it is also stipulated that he can withdraw the housing provident fund if he is unemployed. In contrast, the maternity fund is universal. As long as you are in the childbearing age, no matter whether you have the will to give birth, whether you have the material guarantee to give birth, and whether you have the physiological ability to give birth, as long as you don't have a second child, everyone needs to pay. Moreover, only if you have more than two children can you apply for taking out the maternity fund; Or wait until retirement.

A one-size-fits-all approach is essentially a "mandatory fine".

The most important thing is that setting up a maternity fund should be not only an economic account, but also an ethical account.

People can't stand without faith, and so can countries. National credit is embodied in laws and constitutions. The constitution stipulates the rights of citizens, and the state must have proper and sufficient reasons to require citizens to fulfill their obligations. Therefore, the establishment of a maternity fund is not a question of individual accounts or mutual funds, but that the state cannot interfere with citizens' property without sufficient reasons. Otherwise, it is a kind of "punishment for not having children" and "punishment for not having a second child".

From this perspective, social security, medical insurance and maternity funds are very different. In modern political ethics, if a person does not save money (pay insurance) for the future, society can't abandon him, and the result is to occupy other people's labor. Therefore, the state forces almost everyone to participate in social security and medical insurance.

In contrast, the maternity fund is directly fined because it sets a hard time threshold. If you don't do that, you will get no benefit.

This is a simple and rude logic.

After the two-child birth was released, China's birth policy gradually loosened. In this increasingly tolerant background, whether to have two children can not be the reason for any mandatory fine. According to these experts, if the maternity fund system is established, people will still be regarded as tools, and there is no respect for people, and maternity will not be regarded as an independent right of people.

In fact, the best way to stimulate fertility is to respect people, have compassion for parents, show love for children, and make efforts in maternity leave, children's admission to the park, family tax relief, economic encouragement, etc., so as to make parents and children in China more relaxed.