Major adjustment of housing provident fund in 53 cities: the maximum payment base was raised by 4245 yuan.

By the middle of the year, the payment base of housing provident fund in various places has ushered in a new round of adjustment.

According to the incomplete statistics of 2 1 Century Business Daily, as of June 28th, 53 cities, including Guangzhou, Tianjin, Chongqing, Kunming, Shijiazhuang, Urumqi, Nanchang, Nanning, Hefei, Qingdao, Haikou and Sanya, have issued plans to adjust the deposit base of provident fund.

Among these cities, 49 cities have raised the upper limit of the payment base, of which Sansha City has the largest increase, reaching 4245 yuan; Followed by Taizhou and Kunming, the increase was 3,500 yuan and 3,453 yuan respectively. In addition, the upper limit of payment base in Tianjin and Chengmai is the same as last year, while in Dongfang and Huangshi, 156 yuan and 17 yuan are lowered respectively.

From the lower limit of the payment base, 33 of the 53 cities were the same as last year, and most other cities showed a slight increase lower than that of 200 yuan. Tangshan, Baoding and Quanzhou rose the most, reaching 540 yuan, 250 yuan and 220 yuan respectively.

Zheng Bingwen, director of the World Social Security Research Center of China Academy of Social Sciences, told the reporter of 2 1 Century Business Herald that this year, the proportion of provident fund deposits in various places remained between 5% and 12%, with little change. The reason why the upper limit of the payment base is adjusted much and the lower limit is adjusted little is because the former is based on three times the average wage in various places, and the latter is based on the minimum wage in various places. This reflects a problem that the national average wage is still rising, while the minimum wage is relatively stable.

He pointed out that the biggest impact of raising the upper limit of the deposit base is the people whose income level has exceeded the upper limit of the deposit base of the provident fund. Most of them are high-income groups in large enterprises. Because the adjustment of the lower limit of the deposit base of provident fund in most areas is extremely limited, this has little impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, and for the latter, the burden of provident fund is more sensitive.

Affected by the epidemic, most places have introduced the policy of delaying the payment of housing provident fund this year. As a continuation of holdover measures, some areas have further extended the cumulative period of holdover of housing provident fund for one year. Some places also give enterprises more flexibility in reducing the proportion of corporate deposits, relaxing provident fund loans, and leasing quotas.

49 cities raised the upper limit of the payment base, with a maximum of 4245 yuan.

According to the statistics of 2 1 Century Business Daily, at least 53 cities have announced the adjustment plan of the payment base of provident fund.

These cities include: Chongqing, Yangzhou, Kunming, Shijiazhuang, Urumqi, Jilin, Taizhou, Wenzhou, Neijiang, Nanchang, Nanning, Quanzhou, Guilin, Guangzhou, Xuchang, Tianjin, Tangshan, Huangshan, Changchun, Nanning, Hefei, Qingdao, Haikou, Sanya, Sansha, Danzhou, Qionghai, Wenchang and Wanning.

Figure1:Adjustment of housing accumulation fund in 2020

In the above-mentioned cities' provident fund adjustment schemes, the vast majority (49 cities) choose to raise the upper limit of the payment base this year, and the increase range is mostly between 500 yuan and 2,500 yuan.

Among these cities, Sansha City in Hainan has the largest increase. According to the plan of Sansha City, the upper limit of the city's provident fund payment base will be 25,596 yuan in 2020, which is 4,245 yuan higher than 2 135 1 yuan in 20 19. The upper limit of this payment base is also the highest in Hainan Province, higher than Haikou (20,670 yuan) and Sanya (2 1093 yuan), and roughly equivalent to Tianjin (25,983 yuan).

After Sansha City, Taizhou City and Kunming City were raised by 3,500 yuan and 3,453 yuan respectively, and the upper limit of the payment base of the two places was 2 1.500 yuan and 235 1.06 yuan respectively.

In addition, the upper limit of payment base in Tianjin and Chengmai is the same as last year, while in Dongfang and Huangshi, 156 yuan and 17 yuan are lowered respectively.

In an interview with 2 1 century business herald, Zheng Bingwen pointed out that the problem reflected by raising the upper limit of payment base in many places was that the average wage in most places kept rising last year.

He pointed out that according to China's "Regulations on the Management of Housing Provident Funds", the deposit base of the provident fund is determined by the average monthly salary of employees in the previous year, and the upper limit of the deposit base is not higher than three times the average monthly salary of employees in the previous year. In terms of deposit ratio, it generally does not exceed 12%. "The upper limit of the deposit ratio has not changed much since this year, but the upper limit of the deposit base has been raised in different degrees. The main reason is that the average wage level in various places has increased to varying degrees in the past year. "

For example, in 20 19, the average annual salary of employees in non-private units in Kunming was 94,063 yuan, up by18,604 yuan over the previous year, and its average monthly salary also rose to 7,838.58 yuan. According to the stipulation that the deposit base does not exceed 3 times of the average monthly salary of employees in the previous year, the upper limit of the deposit base of housing provident fund paid by employees in Kunming in 2020 is 235 16 yuan.

Zheng Bingwen emphasized that the people whose income level has exceeded the upper limit of the contribution base of the provident fund are most affected by the increase of the upper limit of the contribution base, and most of them are high-income groups in large enterprises.

For example, the monthly income of a senior executive of a large enterprise in Kunming is 30,000 yuan, and the payment base of its 20 19 provident fund is not 30,000 yuan, but is paid according to the local upper limit of 20,063 yuan; This year, the ceiling was raised to 235 16 yuan. If the units and individuals pay the provident fund at the ratio of 12% respectively, then the monthly cost of the provident fund paid by this large enterprise for this executive is 828.72 yuan.

Without increasing the burden on small enterprises, the lower limit of deposit base in 33 cities is the same as last year.

During the epidemic, raising the upper limit of provident fund may increase the burden of provident fund for some enterprises. In fact, since the beginning of this year, based on the consideration of reducing the burden on enterprises, there has been a dispute over the retention or abolition of provident funds in society.

However, Zheng Bingwen stressed that at present, China's provident fund has become a part of labor remuneration income, and enterprises will determine the appropriate deposit ratio according to collective consultation with employees, which is a natural burden for enterprises based on market game. Enterprises can't use this to reduce the salary income of employees, otherwise it will reduce the attractiveness of jobs. In fact, for these high-income groups, many large enterprises have greater ability to cope with the rising cost of provident fund.

He pointed out that in this year's provident fund adjustment plan, the lower limit of the deposit base in most places is the same as last year, which means that the cost of provident fund for a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises has not increased significantly. Compared with large enterprises, these enterprises are more sensitive to the cost of provident fund.

For example, although the cost of provident fund for senior executives of the above-mentioned large enterprises has increased by 828 yuan per month, for a small and medium-sized enterprise also located in Kunming, the burden of provident fund for each employee in 2020 will be the same as last year, which is 10% of the local minimum wage, that is, 167 yuan. Under the epidemic situation, it may be crucial for the survival of such enterprises to keep the cost of provident fund from rising.

According to the business report of 2 1 century, among the 53 cities that announced the adjustment plan of provident fund, 33 cities chose not to raise the lower limit of the deposit base this year, namely Sansha, Taizhou, Kunming, Guangzhou, Jining, Rizhao, Chongqing, Lingao, Ledong, Qionghai, Haikou, Sanya, Heze, Nanchang, Danzhou, Wanning and Yangzhou.

However, Nanning, Wenzhou, Putian, Longyan, Qingdao, Sanming, Nanning, Langfang, Quanzhou, Guilin, Wuzhou, Handan, Tangshan, Shijiazhuang, Jilin, Baoding and other places have slightly raised the lower limit of the deposit base, most of which are within 200 yuan.

Zheng Bingwen said that the lower limit of the provident fund deposit base is generally based on the local minimum wage or 60% of the average wage, but this lower limit has not been raised in many places this year, indicating that the local minimum wage has not been raised this year, or it is not obvious.

The 265438+20th century business report also confirms this point: at present, the minimum wage in most parts of the country is between 1500-2000 yuan, among which there are 7 areas with more than 2000 yuan, including 2480 yuan/month in Shanghai, 2200 yuan/month in Beijing and Shenzhen, and 2 100 yuan/month in Guangdong.

In addition, Shandong is 19 10 yuan/month, Hebei and Henan are 1900 yuan/month, Xinjiang is 1820 yuan/month, Liaoning and Guangxi are 18 10 yuan/month. Inner Mongolia 1760 yuan/month, Hubei 1750 yuan/month, Shanxi, Hunan, Qinghai 1700 yuan/month, Heilongjiang, Jiangxi 1680 yuan/month, Hainan and Yunnan 1670 yuan/month.

Zheng Bingwen pointed out that in fact, there has been a great controversy in recent years about whether the local minimum wage should be raised. Opponents believe that the wage level should be reached through consultation between employers and employees, and the government should not set the minimum wage standard. Whether this minimum wage standard is beneficial or harmful to macroeconomics and employment remains to be studied.

"Under the impact of this year's epidemic, most places choose not to adjust the minimum wage, which is conducive to reducing the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises and protecting the employment of low-income groups." He said.

Extend the delay time and increase the flexibility of deposit ratio

In terms of deposit ratio, most local laws and regulations stipulate that the deposit ratio of municipal organs, institutions and their employees is12%; The upper limit of the contribution ratio of enterprises and their employees is 12%, and the lower limit is 5%.

It is worth noting that some places have left more flexibility for enterprises or individuals when determining the deposit ratio.

For example, Guangzhou stipulates that the proportion of housing provident fund paid by units and individuals shall be chosen by units and individuals. In principle, only one unit can be selected for the same unit, and the individual deposit ratio should be equal to or higher than the unit deposit ratio.

At the same time, Guangzhou stipulates that units with real difficulties in paying the housing provident fund can propose to reduce the payment ratio (less than 5%) or postpone the payment of the housing provident fund from July 2020 to 202 1, and then increase the payment ratio or resume the payment after the economic benefits of the enterprise improve, and repay the housing provident fund during the deferred payment period.

Zheng Bingwen pointed out that under the impact of the epidemic, many small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties in operation, and Guangzhou and other places have left more flexible space for enterprises in the proportion of provident fund deposits, which is conducive to protecting market players and employment. After the adjustment, enterprises and individuals may break the previous deposit relationship of 1: 1, and the individual deposit ratio is higher than the unit.

But he stressed that this is a short-term mitigation measure. After the business operation returns to the right track, the deposit relationship between units and individuals should be restored to 1: 1. "In the long run, it is impossible to require employees to maintain a high contribution ratio, while the unit maintains a low contribution ratio, because last year's housing provident fund yield was only 1.58%, far below the market average income level. Under the premise of not increasing the proportion of corporate contributions, maintaining a high proportion of individual contributions is actually a compulsory deposit behavior. "

According to the Annual Report of National Housing Provident Fund 20 19 jointly issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank, by the end of 20 19, the balance of national housing provident fund deposit was 6,537.243 billion yuan, and the value-added income of housing provident fund in 20 19 was 976,654.38+0.5 billion yuan, an increase of 6,544.

Xu Hongcai, deputy director of the Economic Policy Committee of China Policy Science Research Association, told the reporter of 2 1 Century Business Herald that this is a further mitigation measure based on the consideration that the epidemic will have a lasting impact on the economy. "This is a slowdown, not a reduction, so this is a short-term mitigation measure, not a long-term institutional arrangement for enterprises to reduce their burdens."

He pointed out that since the epidemic, many parts of the country have taken mitigation measures to postpone the payment of housing provident fund for enterprises and individuals from February to June 2020. During the extension period, the enterprise will not be regarded as unpaid, and its credit information will not be affected; The deposit time of employee housing provident fund is calculated continuously.

However, in most places, when applying for holdover, enterprises should put forward a plan to pay back, and pay back in time after the holdover expires. For example, Wenzhou requires "overdue payment" before the end of July 2020; Shanghai requires that from July 2020, the borrower will normally return the housing provident fund loan, no later than the end of September 2020; Fuzhou pointed out that enterprises that have difficulties in production and operation due to the epidemic can postpone the payment of provident fund and should apply for re-payment within three months from the end of emergency response to public health emergencies in Fuzhou.

It is worth noting that similar to Guangzhou, some places have made further deferred payment arrangements, mostly for one year. For example, Chongqing pointed out that after June 30, 2020, all enterprises that meet the deferment conditions can still apply for deferment of housing provident fund according to relevant regulations, and the cumulative deferment period shall not exceed 1 year; Yangzhou pointed out that after the expiration of the holdover period, if an enterprise encounters difficulties in its production and operation, and it can't make a normal deposit after losing money for six months or more, it can apply for continuing holdover, and the holdover period shall not exceed 1 year.

In addition, some places have made more flexible arrangements for the withdrawal of provident fund.

For example, Yangzhou stipulates that employees who are under great pressure to pay rent due to the COVID-19 epidemic can reasonably increase the rent withdrawal amount, and the maximum monthly withdrawal amount will be raised from 1.500 yuan/month to 2,000 yuan/month, and it will not exceed 80% of their monthly deposit. Jilin stipulates that employees who have no housing and rent commercial housing due to the epidemic can submit relevant supporting materials before June 30, 2020, and apply to increase the rental withdrawal amount to 150% of the original withdrawal amount. In Shenyang, the amount of housing provident fund withdrawn by employees' families is increased from 1.200 yuan/month to 1.400 yuan/month (Liaozhong, Xinmin, Faku and Kangping are increased from 800 yuan to 950 yuan/month).

Zheng Bingwen pointed out that compared with the deposit of 2.37 trillion yuan of housing provident fund, the withdrawal of provident fund last year was less than 1.63 trillion yuan, and the return on investment continued to hover at a low level. In recent years, it has become a trend to relax the withdrawal conditions of provident fund.

According to the data in the 20 19 annual report of the national housing provident fund, in 20 19, there were 3.224 million housing provident fund deposit units, with paid-in employees148813,800, up by 10.57% and 3.08% respectively over the previous year. In 20 19, the deposit of housing accumulation fund was 2,370.967 billion yuan, an increase of 12.6 1% over the previous year.

Figure 2: Housing accumulation fund deposit and growth rate from 2015 to 20 19.

Figure 3: Withdrawal amount and withdrawal rate of housing provident fund from 2015 to 20 19.

In terms of withdrawal, in 20 19, the number of people withdrawing housing provident fund was 56.4856 million, accounting for 37.96% of the paid-in employees; Withdrawal amount162865438+78 million yuan, an increase of10.46% over the previous year; The extraction rate was 68.67%, which was 65438 0.34 percentage points lower than the previous year.