? A number of data support the conclusion that the social security rate is too high. Among 125 countries in the world, only 1 1 country has a social security rate of over 40%, and China is one, with a higher social security rate than Germany, the United States, Japan and South Korea. The high social security rate and heavy burden on enterprises have affected the income growth of working class, especially small and medium-sized enterprises and their employees. It is necessary to reduce the social security rate. However, what about the social security fund when the social security rate is reduced and the enterprise payment is reduced? Not long ago, at the two sessions in Shanghai, it was reported that the annual social security deficit in Shanghai exceeded10 billion, and various ways such as state-owned, financial and land income were being explored to raise funds. Shanghai released social security deficit data, claiming that it was "difficult", saying that the social security level was lower than that of Beijing, Guangzhou and other places, or there was a financial game between the central and local governments. This is just like the representative of Zhong Nanshan calling for the Asian Games to be in debt at the two sessions in Guangzhou, and the state should give it support. However, the authenticity of the data is still worrying. Even in a developed city like Shanghai, the social security fund is still in serious deficit. What will happen to other regions and cities? The difficulties faced by social security can be described as profound. On the one hand, the high social security rate has caused a serious burden, on the other hand, the total amount of social security funds is insufficient, making ends meet. The social security fund must be increased, and the enterprise social security rate needs to be reduced. There is only one logical way, and the financial sector should increase its investment in social security. It has long been known that the most important purpose of modern state financial expenditure is to benefit the social security of the whole people. According to statistics, social security in developed countries often accounts for more than 40% of fiscal expenditure, and in emerging countries it is between 20% and 30%. In China, only 1 1% of fiscal expenditure is used for social security. Whether taxes in China are high is a controversial issue. Some international organizations and many domestic experts say that taxes are high, but some government departments and their subordinate research institutions think that they are not high. It is said that the caliber is different, but perhaps more importantly, the standpoint of observation is different. Leaving this issue aside, even if the tax revenue is not high, the flow of tax revenue is still a problem. How much tax is used for social security that directly benefits citizens is very important. No matter whether the tax revenue is high or low, the problem lies in the low proportion of financial expenditure invested in social security. Why can't fiscal expenditure be more invested in social security and directly expand citizens' welfare? In China, taxation has always been interpreted as "taking from the people and using it for the people". This "access mode" is different from modern taxation, which requires the consent of the people and the use is decided by the people. Even if we agree with the "access model", if we have ample financial resources and do not expand social welfare, it is that the purpose of the government has deviated; If finance is tight, then expanding social welfare can be considered powerless. A more benign understanding can be considered that financial constraints restrict social security investment. Then, what can be analyzed next is, why can't the financial constraints meet the requirements of social security? Why can the social security input only account for 10% of the total expenditure, but it can't reach the average level of developing countries? What cannot be guaranteed is not only the social security expenses, but also the investment in education and public health. In the total expenditure, management expenses account for a large proportion. Administrative expenses include normal office expenses, raising people's heads, and the famous "three public consumption". In other words, a large part of the value created by the people is used in various power systems and public institutions to maintain their own operation, but it cannot be used to improve the public welfare and social security level. It is reported that the data of the comprehensive department of the Ministry of Finance is quoted. From 65,438+0,978 to 2006, the proportion of management expenses in fiscal expenditure increased from 4.7% to 65,438+0.8%. The corresponding data are 2.38% in Japan, 4. 19% in Britain, 5.06% in Korea, 6.5% in France, 7. 1% in Canada and 9.9% in the United States. So far, we haven't talked about two wealth black holes that are difficult to calculate. One is the ineffectiveness or even negative consumption caused by improper decision-making of public finance, and the other is the corruption loss that is difficult to be covered by any statistical data. Citizens have supported rapid growth with low wages and low welfare, and enterprises are also paying the price of high taxes and fees and high transaction costs. Fiscal revenue is growing rapidly, but it is still too tight to undertake basic social security. If we can't reduce the administrative cost, restrain the budget and effectively curb corruption, then the problems such as the deficit of social security fund, heavy corporate tax burden and insufficient public investment can't be solved. The direction of the problem, on the surface, is the proportion of financial distribution, but in fact it is a profound institutional problem. (Liu Hongbo)

If you want to know more about insurance, you can go to >> "Raise more fish and talk about insurance" for free consultation!