The Property And Attribution Of The Right To Value-added Income Of Housing Accumulation Fund

Before 1990 s,In China's housing security policy,the government allocated housing to employees in the form of welfare,and the opportunity for urban workers to get housing is closely related to their work.In the operation of this system,the shortage of housing supply and the shortage of construction funds have emerged.In this situation,the Central Committee has carried out a series of attempts,such as allowing urban residents to build their own houses and selling them,and to carry out pilot policies in various places.Among them,Shanghai introduced and built a housing provident fund system from Singapore.After a period of trial implementation,it achieved positive results,and accumulated a certain scale of housing provident fund,which successfully solved the problem of insufficient housing security funds.Subsequently,the State Council began to promote the system throughout the country,and after several reforms and improvements,the present housing provident fund system was gradually formed.But in the process of establishing and perfecting this system,there is a problem: is the ownership of the housing accumulation fund value-added income enjoyed by the state or by employees? The necessity of making clear the answer to this problem is that the ownership of capital in housing security system is concerned by workers and governments,and the scale of housing security funds will continue to expand in the future.Therefore,it is clear that ownership attribution of value-added funds of housing provident fund can clearly identify the responsibility bearer of capital transfer risk,and provide a legalized explanation for the operation of housing provident fund system,which is conducive to the improvement and improvement of this system in the future.In order to answer the question of the attribution of the value added income of the housing provident fund,we should first clarify the relevant legal facts.The workers and enterprises pay part of their wages to the housing provident fund management center,the housing provident fund management center will bring together the funds entrusted to the trustee bank deposit,and then the trustee bank authorized by the housing provident fund management center will use the money for loans or buy government bonds,and ultimately come into being housing provident fund value-added benefits.Employees can get part of their housing fund and earn interest at a certain interest rate.For value-added income,government departments will build for low rent housing in cities.To view the legal facts from the property law and agent behavior theory: workers in order to meet the housing needs of their own,to pay part of the wages centralized authorization to the operation of government departments,In this legal relationship,workers are authorized person;the government is the agent.The authorization is the safe operation of the funds and for the housing needs of the protection of workers,the government department is responsible for prudential operation and should reporte timely to workers;housing provident fund value-added benefits belongs to all employees,Then wokers give the housing provident fund value-added benefits to the government departments in order to continue operationing.In this legal interpretation,government departments have the right to obtain certain remuneration,while the workers have the right to supervise the government.The risk of capital operation is borne by workers.Unless the government departments fail to perform prudent operation obligations or violate their responsibilities,the government departments do not undertake the obligation of compensation.The law of creditor's rights can also explain the housing provident fund system.A legal relationship is not exist before the government departments require the housing provident fund.So the unjust enrichment is formulated.Government departments should return the funds income;The government departments return to workers in the form of the low rent housing in the consideration of housing needs.In this legal relationship,Workers should be broad sense rather than specific employees,because government departments provide low rent housing for every employee is unrealistic,which is only a legitimate explanation.In this legal interpretation,the government does not undertake the risk of capital operation,but only returns the existing interests,which is the theory of unjust enrichment.