At present, the most important thing is to solve the problems emerging, especially for public opinion, and solve them one by one, so as to release the dividend policy of provident fund as far as possible.

Now that there is a provident fund policy, we should make good use of our policies.

At present, it is important to address problems emerging, especially for public opinion, to solve or mitigate the dividends of provident fund as much as possible.

According to media reports, the proportion of housing provident fund used in Beijing accounted for only about 1.5% of the employees in 2015.

That is to say, 100 people who pay housing provident fund, only 1.5 people are using the housing provident fund.

Based on the low efficiency of housing provident fund, vice president of China Labour Association

It is better to abolish housing provident fund.

But the abolition of housing provident fund is more like a breath of anger.

On the one hand, in the current housing market, housing provident fund has played a certain role; on the other hand, housing provident fund is not only a sum of money, but also a huge system.

According to the report, the utilization rate of Beijing provident fund is very low, actually, it has a real helplessness.

Average person

Two thousand or three thousand yuan a month, even if some high, such as some monopoly units to reach more than 10000 yuan, according to the current high housing prices in Beijing, this provident fund is completely inadequate, which is doomed to most people "can only have the use."

Conversely, in the 234 tier cities, because of relatively low housing prices, provident fund may still be used.

A people's livelihood policy has so many people's dissatisfaction; the proposal to abolish it is a dissatisfaction to a certain extent.

Therefore, what really needs to be paid attention to is what is the problem of the provident fund and how to solve it? Su Hainan said that the existing housing provident fund was mainly obtained by high and middle-income earners, and the existing housing provident fund.

It will increase the level of income gap, and at the same time, it will bring heavy burden to enterprises.

This is indeed a reality in some places.

According to the regulations, the proportion of housing provident fund deposit is not higher than 12%, but for some monopoly departments, on the one hand, the wage base is higher; on the other hand, from the tax avoidance considerations, the provident fund has been increased.

Under this background, there exist certain industrial and regional differences in housing provident fund.

Moreover, because of the limited income, low-income people can not really meet the requirements of using the provident fund.

If we have problems, we must be brave enough to face them and solve them.

For now, efforts should be made to promote housing fund to cover every worker.

For those who have the duty to avoid taxes and raise their pay standards, they should be severely restricted.

At the same time, we should also consider relaxing the use conditions of provident fund and so on.

In addition, it is also important to note that some enterprises are facing difficulties in their operation, and forced expropriation will increase their burden.

In this regard, can we expand our thinking, such as tax incentives to encourage enterprises to actively pay?