The article is from the public account: , author: Liu Zuo.
Introduction:
The Atomic Think Tank shared controversial topics about the abolition of the housing provident fund system in the last issue, which caused readers to go farther than previous discussions. Among them, criticisms of the current housing provident fund system are quite common. So does this mean that the system is simply abolished?
This issue of the Atomic Think Tank continues to focus on this topic and share the thoughts of a professional, Mr. Liu Zuo, former director of the Taxation Research Institute of the State Administration of Taxation.
The author revealed that in 2018 China’s housing provident fund paid companies totaled 2.177 million and paid employees totaled 99.84 million, accounting for 6.3% and 24.7% of the total number of enterprises and employees in the country that year. In other words, the proportion of enterprises and employees paying housing provident funds is not high. Whether to cancel the enterprise housing provident fund system has little to do with most enterprises and employees.
In addition, from the author ’s point of view, since the housing provident fund for enterprises and employees is exempted, if the housing provident fund is cancelled, the profits of the enterprise will increase, and the income tax will increase; while employees will no longer pay the provident fund, not only will personal income tax increase, It will also lose the part of the provident fund benefits that the company paid for it.
Of course, the author also acknowledges that there are still many problems in China’s housing provident fund system and management work. Some criticisms are not groundless, and many of them have insights.
Body:
Recently, in order to cope with the recent outbreak of new crown pneumonia, some people have suggested that “the enterprise housing provident fund system” be “directly reduced by 12% for enterprises and employees”. The above suggestions may make some sense, but the related issues seem to be worthy of consideration. I would like to make three points here:
First, a multi-year