Without a unit, is it cost-effective to buy endowment insurance in full?

On the one hand, why does it look uneconomical?

It's not cost-effective, mainly because you don't have a unit, so you have to buy insurance in full. As we all know, China's social insurance involves the social insurance of urban workers. This insurance is stipulated by the state that the employees of the unit shall be jointly paid by the unit and the employees. For the same payment standard, the unit payment ratio is 26%, of which the unit payment 18% and the individual payment 8% are deposited in the personal account. However, if there is no unit to pay personal expenses, the state stipulates that it will pay the full amount at its own expense. Under the same standard, the individual contribution ratio is 20%, of which 12% belongs to the overall planning and 8% belongs to the individual account.

Then, this question comes. If the two people have the same payment base, the monthly payment is calculated at 10000 yuan, and 20% of the individual contributions are 2000 yuan, then the annual payment is 24000 yuan. Even if the minimum payment is 60%, 14400 is required. The key expenses are entirely borne by the individual. Employees and enterprises jointly bear 26%, 2600 yuan per month, 3 1200 yuan for the whole year, and the same 60% contribution is 18720 yuan, but 2/3 is borne by enterprises, and individuals only take13, which is about 6000 yuan.

If the minimum payment period for retirement is 15 years, the cost of personal pension without unit is 14400 x 15 = 210.6 million yuan per year, and the total cost of personal pension for employees with unit contributions is18720x/kloc-0. This is still calculated according to 15, excluding other medical work-related injuries and maternity benefits.

On the other hand, why is it actually cost-effective?

This is mainly because social insurance is a livelihood project led by the national government, which is essentially different from other commercial insurance. All commercial insurance is based on economic benefits, while social insurance is a welfare policy that benefits the country and the people, and it is mandatory for the unit. Instead, all operating modes are dominated by the state, and all staff members are paid by the state finance, unlike other insurances, which are paid from insurance premiums.

Social insurance also has the nature of social welfare. Everyone who retires from social insurance has a relatively guaranteed income, which can be continuously improved on a stable basis. For example, the state adjusts the pension every year considering factors such as rising prices, with a continuous increase of 17, and stipulates that you can receive the pension forever as long as you are alive, or you can return the balance of your personal account to your heirs if you die unexpectedly in the middle, which is enough to show that it is quite cost-effective compared with other insurances.

To sum up, I think it is really uneconomical for no unit to pay 2/3 more social security fees at its own expense than people with units. It is best for the unit to give you 2/3 more. But from another point of view, social insurance is a state-led livelihood project, which has incomparable advantages over other insurances. Its cost is relatively low and the input-output ratio is relatively high. Therefore, participating in social insurance is a wise choice for most of us to provide for the aged.