The real challenge of fiscal and taxation reform: how to change from indirect tax to direct tax

In order to attend the annual meeting of finance and economics, I specially browsed the agenda of such meetings and the introduction of annual meetings over the years. After reading it, I have a feeling that now the government is beginning to realize that it is necessary to talk less about empty rhetoric, but there is actually another kind of empty rhetoric in the financial sector. The speeches made in previous years can also be used this year. The difference is that there are more prominent and sensational titles every year. Shouldn't it be time to reform those holes that always aim at attracting attention and grandstanding?

Frankly speaking, I don't quite understand many words in the seminars organized by the media now. For example, the headline of today's annual meeting is "The Road to Returning Wealth to the People". I thought about it for a long time last night and didn't understand what it meant. "The road to return to the people's wealth" means that we once had an era of people's wealth, and then there was no more. Originally, the people were rich, but now they are not rich, so we have to find a way to return the people to wealth. However, as far as the history of China that I have lived for decades and watched for thousands of years is concerned, I have never seen anyone's wealth before, so I don't know where to return.

From a close point of view, since the reform and opening up, ordinary employees such as migrant workers have earned their wages by working. Ten or eight years ago, their salary in Qian Yue was 500 yuan to 600 yuan, but now it is several thousand dollars. Due to the rising labor costs, entrepreneurs have shouted that production costs have risen too high and too fast, so many industries have to move to Southeast Asia. According to a cooperative study between ADB and Peking University, in recent years, the real wage growth has exceeded the growth rate of labor productivity, and obviously it cannot be said that front-line workers have become poor.

Have the rich become poor? I don't think so. Two days ago, watching the annual economic figures selected by CCTV, the bosses gambled on a small matter. Opening the mouth is a hundred million dollars, and now the fiscal revenue of a poor county is about one hundred million dollars a year. So the rich obviously haven't become poor. So, I don't understand. What do you mean by so many heavyweight guests talking about "the road back to the people's wealth" today?

Let's go back to the theme of this sub-forum I participated in today, which is called "Deepening fiscal and taxation administration and decentralization". I don't quite understand this either. Fiscal and tax decentralization is an internal affair of the government. The government studies fiscal and taxation decentralization. The central government and local governments often hold meetings without inviting us. People themselves have discussed all the problems that should be discussed. We really don't need to help them. Compared with the international situation, the relationship between central finance and local finance in China is normal and similar to others. The proportion of central finance is not high, and transfer payments also exist in other countries. I have lived in Britain for many years, and their central finance is more centralized than ours, and then I make transfer payments. There are still some problems in the fiscal and taxation decentralization system in China, such as reducing special transfer payments and increasing general transfer payments, so there is still room for improvement. However, there are always contradictions and games between the central and local governments, which does not seem to be the main problem we want to study, nor does it need to fight for the interests of a certain level of government.

Generally speaking, China's fiscal and taxation system is problematic, and there are big problems. But unfortunately, just like our current urbanization, income distribution, state-owned assets of state-owned enterprises and securities market, the heated discussions in the media are often untrue. On the contrary, some empty words and even gimmicks are popular. A few days ago, I met a media friend who told me that they would talk a lot without interviewing themselves, just to meet the needs of readers and borrow the words of celebrities, so they found it quite boring to interview themselves. It would be sad if people who have the right to speak in our financial circles were reduced to such empty talk spokesmen.

Let's start with the financial system. What is the primary problem facing China's financial system now? I think there are three major problems in China's financial system:

The first problem is to solve the problem of funds for land sales. A considerable part of our fiscal revenue is non-tax revenue, not tax revenue. Tax revenue is the legal income of the country, and non-tax revenue is not formal enough, and it can only be accidental and sporadic. It is abnormal that our non-tax income is so large. At the same time, a very important part of our non-tax revenue comes from land sales. We learn from Hong Kong. The land in Hong Kong is originally official land, which is the land of the Hong Kong government. We are not our own land yet. We expropriated farmers' land for resale, so accurately speaking, we are not land finance, but "land finance".

I think this "landing finance" is to reform the financial system first. The first major economic challenge facing the new leaders is whether they have the determination and perseverance to reverse this "declining finance". Unfortunately, our media, including academia, have different views on this issue, at least not as an important issue, let alone as a primary issue, but talking about some trivial matters such as decentralization. In my opinion, if the new government reform is politically anti-corruption, whether it can make a breakthrough in the economy, the first touchstone and the first most important test is what attitude to take towards the "fallen finance". If you don't cut yourself first, you can't set things right. For the time being, it can be said that the landing fiscal policy continues to flourish under the slogan of urbanization. I think the media is also adding fuel to the fire, and the speculation in the market is basically the same.

As a matter of fact, it turns out that our land sales finance is something that matches the old urbanization, but the new urbanization can't do this, which is not made clear by our financial media. It's like a planned economy. The planned economy was specially designed for that age of one or two years. At present, the finance of land sales is also owned by a few people and cannot be used for new urbanization. I made criticisms and suggestions to the government in 2006. I said that the construction of new countryside you mentioned is not the main contradiction of today's times. 2/kloc-0 in the first half of the century, the leading factor of China's economic and social development was the new urbanization. Grasping the new urbanization construction is the leading factor of urban and rural planning, and the corresponding new rural construction has space and rationality.

So, what is new urbanization? Where is the old one? Where is this new? I think the government has just begun to have a vague consciousness, and our media and academic circles will be hopeless if they are confused again. At that time, I said that the most important thing of new urbanization is not only quantity but also quality. This needs to solve the scientific planning and layout of cities, and the core is to solve the problems of population and household registration. The key to the old urbanization is that the urbanization of land is out of touch with the urbanization of population and household registration. A few people use the land to make a fortune and speculate the land price very high.

Now the essence of new urbanization is to let the land serve the floating population, greatly reduce the cost of land and urbanization, let migrant workers and other floating population settle down, and let human capital accumulate and improve. However, I have read all the documents, and until today, there is basically no such content. What the media plays up is how developers get land crazily to meet the new urbanization. I said not to meet the new urbanization, but to meet the old urbanization. Because the new urbanization is mainly to solve the problem of people's settlement, how to solve the land system reform, from serving buildings, big squares, developers to make money, serving farmers in urban villages and suburbs, serving urban elites who hoard land and have multiple suites, to serving the main body of urbanization at low cost, that is, migrant workers and their families and other migrants, is the essence of the new urbanization.

The financial system should serve the new urbanization. I think the first big battle to be fought is to change the finance of land sales, but now it can be said that it is not ready in this regard. Without this action and preparation, I think the so-called new urbanization will inevitably take the old road in the end, or the urbanization in which a few people benefit and most people are excluded is our state today. So I think the core of financial system reform is to shake the finance of land reselling. Shaking this thing will bring a series of problems. Because it is easy to criticize it, but the problem of replacing it is complicated.

At present, our land is still under auction. If we strictly distinguish between public welfare land and non-public welfare land according to the central document (of course, this slogan is also problematic), assuming that we really follow this slogan, there will be no business land to sell soon, and there will be no way to recruit, auction and hang up. What about urban construction and urban development? Now we can say that we have not prepared for this. Without preparation, we can only follow the old road now. On the one hand, the land compensation we are forced to pay is getting higher and higher. On the other hand, the prices of urban land and real estate are further pushed up. The result will only be the concentration of land resources, and some people will become rich, thus accumulating more and more asset bubbles, local debts and financial risks. There are so many big developers on China's wealth list that it is rare in the world. This is only available in Hong Kong, because we learned the land auction model from Hong Kong. This model concentrates land resources in the hands of a few large developers. This is why there are so many real estate developers on China's wealth list. Therefore, as soon as the government talks about new urbanization, real estate stocks will rise. I'm done. This is not new urbanization, but old urbanization.

Many people don't realize that the slogan of new urbanization is actually a major challenge to the financial system first, that is, what does our financial system use to replace the old model we called land finance in the past? If the land is not expropriated or auctioned, what method will be used? Now there are new suggestions that suburban farmers can self-urbanize, and some people recommend the mode of spontaneous urbanization of Shenzhen aborigines. However, it is only the farmers in the villages in the city who get rich in Shenzhen. They became multimillionaires or even billionaires. The migrant workers in Shenzhen are nearly 10 times of the local registered population. How many people can live in such a high house price? Can I live in a shed, a handshake building or a basement? We can't benefit suburban farmers under the banner of farmers, and suburban farmers only account for a minority. If only a few people benefit, only the government, developers, urban elites and these vested interests in urban villages and suburban villages can further divide the spoils, which will not solve the problem of new urbanization.

This is the first question I mentioned, that is, the funds for reselling our land. At present, in developed areas and big cities, land finance has accounted for a large proportion. If we don't fundamentally shake this piece and design a new system to completely replace it, then our idea of new urbanization driving economic development will be completely frustrated, because it is impossible for a few people to get rich to drive China's sustained economic growth. Only when hundreds of millions of migrant workers and their families are in rural areas, left-behind children, and a large number of floating population have moved from small and medium-sized towns to coastal first-tier cities, can these hundreds of millions of people be resettled, share the rights to land and housing, and fully integrate into urban life, will the national economy really be promoted and sustainable growth be realized. Moreover, fundamentally speaking, this is not a question of economic growth, but their own choice and inalienable rights. They are nationals. If they have jobs in this city, they have the right to build a nest for themselves. Therefore, I think the first problem and the biggest challenge of the financial system is the attitude and measures to resell land finance.

The second problem of the financial system is the discriminatory distribution of our financial resources. What I said may not be a hot topic in the media now, but I think it is the main problem. Apart from the Matthew effect of the market itself, the reason why the gap between the rich and the poor in China is so large today is that our financial allocation has aggravated the situation that some people are better and some people are worse.

The allocation of our financial resources is related to the allocation of housing we just mentioned. Our city ensures that homeowners are mainly registered population, and migrant workers basically live in basements and sheds. The same is true of the distribution of educational resources, so now it is beginning to argue whether the foreign population can take the college entrance examination locally. Medical care is more inclined to the urban population, especially the system, and so is the social security system. This has greatly aggravated the inequality of our entire property and income distribution.

Objectively speaking, this is related to the history of China's planned economy. Because we protected the urban registered population from the planned economy era. When it is very difficult, the urban registered population has cloth tickets, food tickets and oil tickets, which at least guarantee the most basic supply, but nothing else. Our public medical resources are mainly concentrated in cities, and mainly concentrated in the system, which has used up most of the medical resources. All these things that we used to take for granted are related to our financial system. Just as Guangzhou's finance is a little more open, it immediately reveals that there are some funds in his finance, and tens of millions of them are allocated to kindergartens in provinces or municipal governments. In fact, there are too many phenomena like this, which are seriously unfair in the distribution of financial resources. The distribution of financial resources in other countries can weaken the gap caused by the distribution of the market itself, while our financial distribution has strengthened the inequality of resource distribution as a whole, which is a major problem in our financial system.

Of course, it is not easy to change this. Because the distribution of the current financial system is completely beneficial to urban residents, especially to the system. There are not only millions of civil servants in the system, but also tens of millions of employees in cultural, educational, health, press and publication institutions, and even more family members. This will touch huge vested interests, including the interests of our elites from all walks of life. And this is not only the power elite, but also our financial elite, artistic elite, sports elite and cultural elite are the beneficiaries of this system. This is hard to shake. Therefore, I have always said that the first step of income distribution reform should not be blindly moved, but should be put behind and gradually shaken. At present, most of the contents about income distribution in the media are superficial or completely misleading, so I wrote an article about seven misunderstandings about income distribution reform. In fact, the second major problem of our financial system is the discriminatory distribution of our financial resources, which has seriously aggravated the gap between the rich and the poor.

The third problem is even more difficult, and that is the privileged distribution of our financial resources. Now the new leading group has started a new wave of anti-corruption, which has been welcomed and praised by all sides. Anti-corruption is difficult, but corruption is only an illegal abuse of power, and privilege is a legal abuse of power. Because privileges are recognized by laws and regulations, they can be said to be legal. In order to deepen anti-corruption, we must finally touch the privilege. In fact, I was involved from the beginning. For example, in the past, leaders had to close roads when they went out, but now they don't have to. What did this touch? This has nothing to do with corruption, but with privilege. Of course, there are differences and connections between the two. In short, one is anti-corruption and the other is anti-privilege, and the latter is more difficult. These two things have really been done, and more than half of the political reform has been completed.

In our original financial distribution system, it was tilted towards privilege. For example, our office building has recently been very stylish in some places, which is even more stylish than the Great Hall of the People. This is not just a case. Office buildings all over the country are expanding. This involves the abuse of power. I have been to the office building of members of the Japanese House of Representatives. Members of the Japanese House of Representatives are not deputies to our National People's Congress. First of all, there are only a few hundred people. Secondly, it is more important to form a government with a majority in parliament. Therefore, members of the Japanese House of Representatives are the real power elite, and their members of the House of Representatives are at least equivalent to members of the CPC Central Committee. In their office, every member of parliament has a room with curtains. The secretary sits outside and he sits inside. I also went to the bathroom, which was too small and inconvenient. Therefore, we spend a lot of financial resources on privileges, from office buildings to various buildings and halls, to various training centers and convalescent centers, to various places where dignitaries rest, recuperate and travel, the satisfaction of various hobbies, and all kinds of high-end consumption and gifts, which are also open and hidden places in the three public consumption, and consume a considerable part of our financial resources.

Another big chunk is to maintain financial expenditure and spend money to buy peace. The absurdity of expenditure and the astronomical figures of expenditure are even more jaw-dropping. Therefore, the deepening of anti-corruption will inevitably encounter privilege restrictions, including the limitation of per capita office space, not to mention a large number of facilities, arrangements and expenses outside the office. I was invited to attend a conference in the State Council, USA. In the State Council, USA, there is no place to entertain yourself. Find a public relations company to arrange all the agendas. When guests come, they are arranged in commercial hotels, and meetings are held outside, but we basically use our own internal facilities to limit the outside.

Therefore, the real financial system reform, in my opinion, is these three major issues. I think the first problem to be broken through is land finance, because it is not only an economic problem, but also a social and political problem, and its benefits are obvious. Now we want economic growth and sustainable development, and we can't move forward unless we solve the problem of "landing finance". Other problems can only be solved step by step. Therefore, the real problem of the financial system is not the decentralization between the central and local governments at all. Is there a little less money in the place? I think this is a problem all over the world. Other countries are transferring payments, with the central government accounting for the bulk, and all countries are. This is a normal phenomenon, and we are not worth worrying about. I'll just say so much about finance.

Next, I will talk about the tax system. If the financial problem is a mess, the tax system is basically dominated by wrong ideas. Just now, our host was exaggerating that structural tax cuts only look at the structure, but I think this statement is actually not objective. Because the change from business tax to value-added tax is actually to reduce the value-added tax rate. Our original value-added tax was 17%, but now it is extended to the service industry and transportation industry, which will reduce 17% to 7% and 5%, which will indeed reduce a considerable part of tax revenue.

But I want to say, in fact, the main problem of China's tax system is not that the national tax burden that people mainly criticize now is too heavy, and it seems to me that there are not many. China's tax revenue now accounts for more than 20% of GDP, which is very normal internationally. What's our problem? There are many non-tax revenues besides taxes, so they will add up to more than 30% in the future. If we really take away non-tax revenue, mainly land revenue, as we just said, the main problem of tax revenue is not the problem of reducing the total amount, nor the problem of tax reduction.

Of course, the call for tax cuts is welcomed by the people. Now all the views you see in the media can be summed up in two sentences: first, demand tax reduction, which is welcomed by everyone and a fashionable slogan. Second, everyone is willing to ask for an increase in welfare. What should we do to improve the situation of low-income people? To increase subsidies and benefits, the so-called lowering and expanding. What should I do if I limit the height and increase taxes? That's hard. Too many people come out and say that this will not work, that will have negative effects, and the rich will emigrate and so on, but they can't get it anyway.

In fact, looking at the world, this problem now exists in the United States and Europe. The whole problem in America and Europe is to reduce taxes and increase welfare at the same time. So the United States stepped out of the fiscal cliff and there was a debt crisis in Europe. Because if the part consumed by the government is squeezed out, the government itself is actually just a passing god of wealth, and he will do as much as he receives. You can increase taxes and then increase benefits, or you can reduce taxes and reduce benefits, but the only thing that can't last is to reduce taxes and increase benefits. This is impossible, which is why the United States and Europe can't live today. At least in this respect, they are definitely not examples for us to learn from. If we want to live on a mountain of debt at such a low level of development, it will definitely die.

So although this statement is unpopular, I feel that after solving the non-tax revenue, the level of taxation itself will not come down. According to the functions undertaken by the government now, including the money that people ask him to spend on rural areas, medical care and other aspects, his tax revenue cannot be reduced. Just like the United States now, * * * and the party say that taxes can never be increased, and it is up to you to reduce benefits or not. But if taxes really can't be increased, welfare can only be cut. So Democrats and Obama said that welfare must not be cut, so taxes must be increased. I'm still bargaining and fighting.

What are the main problems in China's tax system? In my opinion, like our economy, it is not a total problem, but a structural problem. The first is non-tax revenue other than tax. After excluding a large amount of non-tax revenue, it is normal for tax revenue to exceed 20% at the current level of development in China. Therefore, the most important issue of China's taxation is the structure. What structural problems? At present, indirect tax is the main tax, and there is basically no direct tax. Therefore, the tax system is the same as adjusting the economic structure. The most important thing is to adjust the tax structure and realize the transformation from indirect tax to direct tax. But we may not oppose this slogan of change, and no one welcomes it, including those of us here.

Indirect taxes are borne by ordinary people. When you buy a steamed bread and a consumer product, you have to pay taxes. The rich spend less, so he pays less. Almost all the income of the poor is used for consumption, so the proportion paid is particularly large. But the so-called indirect tax is not directly taken out of your pocket. When I actually took it out of my pocket, no one wanted to. Therefore, only 7% of working-class people in China pay personal income tax, 90% pay only 5%, and less than 1% actually pay more than 5%. Now there is a new proposal to raise the personal income tax threshold to 6,543,800 yuan. It is said that most netizens agree. If netizens can represent public opinion, it shows that China people's preference is that personal income tax should be abolished. Because few people pay it now, only a few percent of people pay tax when it reaches 10000 yuan. The United States and the Party Rightists are so tough and neo-liberalism is so popular, but most people still have to pay personal income tax.

The same is true for personal income tax. Our direct tax property tax hardly exists. The topic of the just-concluded general election debate in the United States is socialism in Europe and capitalism in the United States, because Americans think that European state intervention and redistribution adjustment are too severe, and they are engaged in socialism, but Americans don't do it. In fact, China's taxation is more capitalist than American capitalism. When I attended the government meeting, I bluntly said that China's tax system is the most capitalist tax system in the world. Because we mainly tax the working and consuming masses, and basically do not tax property and capital. Therefore, you may not be able to afford a suite after working for a lifetime, but you can immigrate by hoarding two suites. Hard work can't make you rich, but property can. How does China innovate and develop?

Judging from the tax system, it is also very leftist for the United States and the Party Rightists to come to China. We have no inheritance tax, gift tax and fixed assets retention tax. Americans who sell stocks within one year have to pay personal income tax, with a marginal tax rate of around 40%, and long-term stocks have to pay 20% capital gains tax. The financial crisis is also a special discount of 15%, and we don't have this tax at all. Of course, if we China people don't like these taxes, we can, but we have to put up with the gap between the rich and the poor. Because without this adjustment, the gap between the rich and the poor must be very large, and it is getting bigger and bigger.

Many people like to say that these problems are caused by incomplete market-oriented reforms, as if the market-oriented reforms were thorough and the problems would be solved. In fact, with the development of marketization in the United States and Europe today, the gap between the rich and the poor is still very large before the adjustment of taxes and benefits. At the end of the first distribution in the United States, the Gini coefficient was also around 0.5, and it was only through the redistribution of taxes and benefits that 0.5 was adjusted to around 0.4. What about Europe? In the eyes of Americans, Europe is socialism, so Europe has been adjusted from 0.5 to below 0.3, down by more than 20 percentage points. What about us? As I said just now, the redistribution of our financial system has intensified the inequality in distribution, and taxes should be adjusted at all. We don't like it. Therefore, China's current Gini coefficient, a few years ago, I said it must be above 0.5, and recently someone said it was 0.6. Although there is no accurate data calculation, I think there is no doubt that China Gini coefficient is above 0.5. Because even the perfect market economy of others is about 0.5 before the secondary distribution, we are definitely much higher than them.

Therefore, I think the real problem to be solved by our tax system is not the tax reduction that everyone likes to deceive themselves, but how to realize the transformation from indirect tax to direct tax. China's current tax system is equivalent to that of the United States and Europe in the18th century, and basically does not regulate property and capital. This is not to say that it is not socialism or modern capitalism, but primitive capitalism. We are still far from modern capitalism. Modern capitalism started from Roosevelt's New Deal, from European social democracy, from labor protection to personal income tax, to inheritance tax, to gift tax, to fixed assets tax, and there are a series of measures to adjust capital, not to mention land and other property and income.

Then, why did I attack the popular lies, empty words and cliches in the financial sector from the beginning? In other words, when we really face the reality, the reality is sometimes cruel and even ugly. What we often face is a dilemma, and the dilemma is the real state of the real economy, which can also be said to be the real topic of economic research. If everything is difficult, it will be too easy. Therefore, frankly speaking, if our tax system still stays in the primitive capitalist tax system of18th century, there will inevitably be a growing gap between the rich and the poor. If we want to change this situation, we must carry out a fundamental and major reform of the tax system.

By the way, the more difficult problem is that when there is no direct tax, hidden income is also difficult. Only when a tax system is dominated by direct taxes can hidden income be put on the agenda. Some people calculate that the hidden income of China residents is 8 trillion yuan and 10 trillion yuan, which is equivalent to more than 20% of GDP, and it is also heated in the media. But if the hidden income is really that big, the proportion of residents' income to GDP will not be low. You can't shout that the scale of hidden income is huge, and the proportion of residents' income to national income is too low, so it should be greatly improved, because if hidden income is included, the proportion of residents' income to national income in China is very high, and improvement is not a problem at all. There are so many popular cliches in the media, which are actually self-contradictory, just like saying that wages and incomes are stagnant, while saying that the labor costs of enterprises are rising too fast. Both cannot be established at the same time.

As far as hidden income is concerned, I personally think it is huge, which is also the real feeling of ordinary people. If there is no hidden income, can 27% of the luxury goods in the world be bought by China people? This indicator can show that our hidden income is huge. The income of residents is not low at all, but seriously unfair and unbalanced. Only when the tax system is dominated by direct tax can hidden income become the main object of tax collection and management, and at the same time it can become the main tool to curb corruption. Because in western countries, anti-corruption mainly depends not on our commission for discipline inspection, but on the tax bureau to a large extent. The most popular saying in the west is that taxes are as inevitable as death. What everyone fears most is taxes, because everyone can't escape. If a rich American wants to immigrate, the tax bureau will let him peel off his skin first.

Therefore, in terms of fiscal and taxation system, the challenges we face are actually very great, including the resistance of the government and the resistance of elites from all walks of life, including ourselves. Because vested interests are involved, it is the people who have the right to speak in China. If the property is taxed, the income is 1%. Many people think it's already serious. Since the third set, many people have put forward many opinions, saying that this is unreasonable. If it is really like Japan and South Korea, it will be collected from the first set, even 7% for villas, 7 million for luxury houses or villas 1 100 million, and more than 600,000 per month. In that case, how many people can afford a mansion? However, it is this system that enables people to overcome the middle-income trap. The reform plan of the income distribution system we are envisaging now has high-profile rhetoric, platitudes, marketization and attacks on others, but when all this falls on ourselves and the elites with the right to speak, what is our attitude? This is the key to China's real progress.

All in all, I think it is right to set up a sub-forum on finance and taxation this year, because the fiscal and taxation system is indeed a key to the promotion of the whole economic reform, so it is really thrilling to have leaders sigh and open the real financial history. When I was living in Britain, every general election, including the government's annual budget, everyone was most concerned about the speech of the Minister of Finance, because his speech talked about taxes, and the whole country stopped to see how to collect taxes next year, because it involved everyone's interests. If you go to the election, you can vote once every four or five years at most, and then you may not go. You said I would take my children to school today, so I stopped voting. However, your vital interests are related to you every day, and your basic rights are here. Therefore, I think the fiscal and taxation system is the core of economic reform, but we should fully predict its difficulty. Not only the economy, but also the society and politics. To solve it well, we need both wisdom and courage, and these are basically unprepared. Just like talking about income distribution reform, the first thing to talk about is to raise the wage standard, or increase the proportion of residents' income in GDP, or scold state-owned enterprises. In fact, it didn't make the problem clear, and hit the real key and difficult point, just grandstanding.

Therefore, I personally feel that these reforms I just mentioned will be very difficult in three to five years. I hope to make a breakthrough on one or two issues, such as the financial breakthrough of selling land, because land income accounts for a large part of our property and income inequality. If this income is not divided by our government, developers, urban elites, farmers in urban villages and suburban villages, the cost of urbanization will really be reduced, and the main body of urbanization, that is, migrant workers and other migrant workers, will benefit, and the overall situation will be fundamentally reversed. Other things need us to unify our thinking, gradually form * * * knowledge, design a good system and then make up our minds to do it slowly.