上海住房公积金保障功能

【作者】 孙玲玲；

【导师】 李薇辉；

【作者基本信息】 上海师范大学 ， 政治经济学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 1991年5月,上海借鉴新加坡中央公积金的运作模式率先建立了住房公积金制度,在过去的十五年里,公积金制度对改革传统城镇住房体制、创新住房保障制度、改善广大市民居住水平、促进房地产繁荣发展等方面做出了重要贡献,成为具有示范作用的“上海模式”。但随着上海公共住房商品化任务的基本完成和社会主义市场经济体制的迅速完善,面对上海经济持续高速增长、城市建设迅猛发展、上海房价迅速攀升的局势,住房公积金所起的作用可谓杯水车薪,住房保障能明显弱化。住房公积金制度一方面存在着诸多问题,如:存贷利率过于僵化、资金保值增值能力低、保障覆盖面小、保障有失公平性、保障功能单一等,另一方面,又有着显而易见的优越性,运作高效,资金安全,多年的积累已经归集了大量资金,截至2006年3月,已经达到1100亿元。住房公积金制度到底应该退出历史舞台还是在更大范围内发挥更大的保障作用,是近两年学术界争论不休的问题。目前,上海面临着三大挑战——社会老龄化问题、外来务工人员保障问题、青年人购房能力低问题,这些问题的解决对进一步发展住房公积金制度的保障功能提出了要求。随着经济的发展,上海日益步入了老龄化社会,人口计划生育的实行使养老压力更加严重,而“四二一”型的家庭结构在加大养老压力的同时也缓解了住房压力。近年来上海外来务工人员激增,他们为上海经济的发展做出了巨大贡献,但是其生存状况却令人堪忧,连基本的保障都没实现,如果不将这部分人保障起来,必将是上海明天的不安定因素。房价的持续攀升,使得绝大多数面临结婚生子压力的年轻人根本没有能力自己购房,而这部分人的缴费特点是现时缴费能力弱,未来缴费能力强,这些状况的存在为发展住房公积金制度的保障功能提出了必要性和可能性。本文将上海住房公积金制度与新加坡的中央公积金制度、德国住房储蓄银行制度、美国的住房“倒按揭”制度进行分析比较,吸取国外先进经验,针对上海住房公积金存在的问题提出了一系列整改措施,并针对上海面临的三大挑战,提出了住房公积金和保障基金结合的初步构想:第一步是实行住房“倒按揭”,以解决日益严重的养老压力;第二步是实行住房养老基金,在更大范围内更深层次上解决养老养老压力和年轻人购房压力;第三步是建立“大公积金”,以建立全面的社会保障制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 In May,1991, referencing the operation system of CPF, Shanghai firstly set up the provident fund system. During the past 15 years, the provident fund have made great contribution to the reformation of traditional town housing system, innovation of housing welfare system and improvement of residents’lives, and have become the demonstrated“Shanghai Model”.But, along with the complete of Shanghai public houses commercialization and the rapid perfection of socialism market economy system, the function that the provident fund can do is too small, especially facing the rapid increase of Shanghai economy, fast development of city construction, and speedy rise of house price. On one hand, the system have some problems, such as: the rate of deposit and credit is too steady, the value of the fund is hard to keep and rise, the safeguard range is too narrow, the system is not very equitable, and the function is too complex, and so on. On the other hand, it has some obvious superiorities: efficient operation, safe fund, and huge amount of fund it collected has been up to 110 billion by march, 2006.Should the provident fund be cancelled or make greater effect in larger area? It’s the hot argue point in the academia in these years.Now, Shanghai are facing 3 great challenges: social aging problem, the welfare problem of Nongmingong’s, the young’s low ability to buy house, all these problems’solution raise high request for deep development of the system.With the development of economy, Shanghai has been walking in an aging society, the population plan made the situation more serious, but the“4-2-1”family structure alleviate the housing pressure at the same time. During the latest years, the ab-extra workforce leaped, they did great contribution to the development of Shanghai economy, but their living situation is worrying, even lack of basic welfare. If without welfare, they’ll be the factor for future instability. With the rapid growth of house price, most young people are unable to buy the house by themselves, but their character is stronger and stronger in payment. All above situation shows that great development of provident fund is possible and essential.On comparing Shanghai provident fund with the CPF of Singapore, the housing deposit bank system of German and the reverse mortgage of USA, and abstracting advanced experience from them, this article bring forwards some reform measures. Aiming at the 3 great challenges Shanghai faced, this article puts forward a primarily conceived a combination of provident fund and social welfare fund: first, carry out“reverse mortgage”system to solute the more and more serious pressure of providing for the aged; second, set up housing-annuity fund to alleviate the pressure of providing for the aged and buying houses; Third, build“big provident fund”to sent up a comprehensive social welfare system.更多还原