A few days ago, Yang Li, who took a fancy to an 80-square-meter second-hand house near Fangzhuang, Beijing, reluctantly signed a loan contract with a commercial bank. For more than a week, he has been busy applying for housing provident fund loans. However, in the face of the total housing price of more than 4.2 million yuan, only 1.2 million yuan of provident fund loan amount means that Yang Li needs to pay a down payment of 3 million yuan.
Yang Li failed to collect so much money in the end. "The combination loan is too long, and the owners basically disagree. If you want to enjoy the benefits of low interest rate of provident fund loans, you will get a high down payment. A’ poor person’ like me basically has no connection with provident fund loans."
An interview with the Workers Daily reporter found that many ordinary employees like Yang Li paid the provident fund in full and on time, but they could not use it when buying a house. Similar embarrassment has repeatedly criticized the provident fund, and it has also made many employees unable to love the provident fund. Recently, after experiencing a new round of rising house prices in many parts of the country, the controversy about whether the provident fund system is to be saved or abolished has revived.
The provident fund has become a "chicken rib"
The difficulty in applying, the long cycle and the low utilization rate are the main reasons why the provident fund is called "chicken ribs", and it is also an important basis for many people to call for the abolition of the provident fund.
"Beijing State-managed provident fund has no time limit, whether it is lending or lending. It may be two or three months, or it may be longer. No one knows how long it will take for the provident fund loan. " An industry insider revealed to reporters that from last year to April this year, the state-managed provident fund loans were basically at a standstill.
Although the corresponding policies were introduced in April in the field of provident fund loans, with the sharp rise in housing prices, the amount of provident fund loans has shrunk relatively, and the actual difficulty of provident fund loans has further increased.
"In fact, buyers want to use the provident fund, but the total house price is four or five million yuan, and the provident fund loan can be up to 1.2 million yuan. Many just need to pay a high down payment. The combined loan time is as long as two and a half months or even longer. Who can afford two or three months when the house price goes up? " According to the staff of Beijing Chain Home, in actual transactions, the number of buyers who use provident fund loans has dropped by 20% compared with last year.
According to the 2015 Annual Report of Beijing Housing Provident Fund, in 2015, Beijing issued 84.886 billion yuan of personal housing provident fund loans, involving 101,367 sets of housing. In Beijing, however, there were more than 6.5 million employees who actually paid fees. In that year, the use ratio of Beijing provident fund only accounted for about 1.5% of paid employees.
According to the 2015 Annual Report of the National Housing Provident Fund, in 2015, 123,933,100 employees were paid into the housing provident fund, and 3,125,000 individual housing loans were issued throughout the year, and the number of people who received the provident fund only accounted for about 2.5% of the paid-in people.
Provident fund brings "invisible injustice"
Compared with the low utilization rate, the difference in the contribution of provident fund and the fairness problems such as "hidden welfare" and "robbing the poor to help the rich" have caused more controversy.
Wang Lina, a researcher at the Institute of Economics of China Academy of Social Sciences, told this reporter that when the provident fund system was introduced in the 1990s, due to the large number of employees in state-owned enterprises, the provident fund covered a wide range. However, after more than 20 years of development, with the development of non-public economy, the coverage of provident fund has dropped to about 30%. "It is difficult for employees of many private enterprises and foreign-funded enterprises to enjoy the protection of provident fund, which has caused unfairness within and outside the system."
In addition, according to the current relevant regulations, the contribution ratio of employees and unit housing provident fund shall not be less than 5% of employees’ average monthly salary in the previous year, and shall not exceed 12% of employees’ average monthly salary in the previous year. However, the specific deposit ratio and payment base of the provident fund are determined by all localities and units. Some analysts believe that there is too much room for independent choice of the contribution base and contribution ratio of the provident fund, which will further widen the income gap.
The reporter learned that even in the same region and the same industry, under the premise of the same proportion and base of provident fund payment, there may be huge differences in the payment of employees’ provident fund. Xiao ‘an, an employee of a financial enterprise in Beijing, told reporters that she personally pays 1,900 yuan of provident fund every month. The students who work with them pay the same amount of provident fund every month in a public institution in the same system. After several years, the difference between the two people’s provident fund balances is tens of thousands. "Their unit also pays more than 2,000 yuan of supplementary provident fund every month, which is naturally much higher."
"At the same time, the defects in the provident fund system have also brought injustice to net depositors and net lenders." Wang Lina said that at present, China’s provident fund is compulsory, but it has not formed a loan mechanism that matches the employee’s obligation to pay. According to the data released by the National Audit Office, in 2005, 44.9% of the personal loans of housing provident fund were paid to the top 20% of the high-income people, while the low-income people ranked 20% after the payment only got 3.7% of the loans.
Restore the "guarantee" face of the provident fund
Facing the fact that the indemnificatory provident fund has become a "chicken rib" and even caused new injustice, recently, Su Hainan, vice president of china association for labour studies, said that the housing provident fund is mainly obtained by high and middle income people, and the current housing provident fund system will increase the income gap and bring a heavy burden to enterprises, so it is suggested to cancel the housing provident fund.
Previously, the Research Report on Labor Cost in China issued by China Institute of Income Distribution of Beijing Normal University also suggested that the housing provident fund system, which has increased significantly and brought unfair distribution, should be abolished. According to the report, China’s labor costs have increased in recent years, and the fastest growth is the housing provident fund. Moreover, the housing accumulation fund is mainly in monopoly industries and high-income earners, while low-income industries and ordinary employees do not benefit equally, which further leads to unfair income distribution.
However, there are also voices that the abolition of provident fund is due to choking on food. Statistics show that during the "Twelfth Five-Year Plan" period, the withdrawal amount of China’s housing provident fund reached 3,405.953 billion yuan, with an average annual increase of 29.32%. Individual housing loans amounted to 11,580,400 and 3,476,104 million yuan, with average annual growth rates of 18.01% and 30.40% respectively. Li Changan, a professor at university of international business and economics School of Public Administration, said that this means that more than 10 million people enjoy the benefits and benefits brought by the housing provident fund. At present, there are some problems in the housing provident fund system, but it is not a good policy to simply cancel it.
"It is impossible to cancel the provident fund." Wang Lina said that the provident fund has now reached a trillion yuan scale, which is related to the savings and loans of tens of millions of people. The urgent task is how to further improve it. "In the future, the housing demand will be concentrated in two groups: college graduates and migrant workers. The provident fund system should be reformed and innovated in a targeted manner to provide protection and services for groups with urgent housing needs."