The Chinese authorities recently claimed that 22 cities are piloting house inspection, housing pension, and housing insurance systems, sparking a backlash online as the public views it as a disguised property tax. The official statement was met with skepticism from netizens, who questioned where the funds would come from and whether ultimately, it would be the people who foot the bill.
Deputy Minister Dong Jianguo of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the Chinese Communist Party stated on August 23 at a press conference held by the State Council Information Office that they are researching the establishment of house inspection, housing pension, and housing insurance systems. Currently, Shanghai and other 22 cities are in the pilot phase. When homeowners purchase properties, their personal accounts already have funds through payment of the residential special maintenance fund. The focus of the pilot is for the government to establish public accounts.
Following this announcement, it immediately sparked widespread discussions about indirect property tax collection and trended on Baidu’s hot search list on August 24.
In response, the official media outlet of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, “Architectural Magazine,” published a commentary on its WeChat account on August 26, stating that the proposed housing pension system by the authorities was “severely misunderstood.”
The article pointed out that what Dong Jianguo actually said was that the emphasis of the pilot is for the government to establish public accounts, which do not require funds from the public! Many self-media and video bloggers drew conclusions without fully understanding the complete statement, claiming that the government plans to collect housing pension. The full statement made it clear: “Personal accounts already have funds through the payment of the residential special maintenance fund.”
However, mainland netizens were not convinced by the official clarification:
“Is there such a good thing? Will the cost come back to haunt us?”
“Nonsense, if the public accounts don’t need our money, and the personal accounts don’t need our money? Just play along, do they have to play with our emotions?”
“If you don’t need people’s money, then do the work quietly, just show the benefits to the people in the end!”
“The government’s money also comes from taxpayers! What do you mean by not needing us to pay?”
“If it’s not from the people’s pockets, is it fleece from its own body?”
“Will the people end up footing the bill in the end? Use your brain.”
“Why not mention this from the beginning? Just experimenting and when they find great public outrage, they change the narrative?”
“Creating a new term again, they are really good at inventing new terminology!”
A piece written by Xiong Zhi from mainland China’s self-media “Husi Kan” pointed out that the core issue of concern is, where will the money come from? Will it turn into indirectly taking money out of the people’s pockets? It shouldn’t be under the guise of “for your own good” to burden the public.
The article mentioned that since it is a public account, it should use public funds like land transfer fees and financial rewards, so personal contributions are unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that with the real estate market entering a stage of existing stock in recent years, land transfer fees, which are known as selling land income, have been gradually decreasing. Consequently, some regions have suffered from a significant reduction in financial revenue. Where will the excess funds come from to support the construction of housing pension in the future?
Moreover, regarding the issue of housing pension, there is already the “residential special maintenance fund.” If an additional public account is set up, it will create functional duplication. The article pointed out that the “residential special maintenance fund” itself serves as housing pension. Since there is a large amount of pension lying dormant in the fund pool, why rush to find alternative ways to fill the gap?