Experts question basis for 'social fostering fee'
By Cai Wenjun |
May 3, 2012, Thursday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
THE social fostering fee, a sum charged for a child born outside China's one-child policy, has no legal basis and is out of date under the current low birth rate, according to population experts.
They also question where the money raised, said to be as much as 20 billion yuan (US$3.17 billion) a year, goes.
He Yafu, a population policy researcher, said China started to collect the fee in 1980, since when 150 to 200 million people had been born in contravention of the one-child policy.
In the 1980s, the fee was said to be a fine for delivering "unlawful" children. The term changed to "unlawful delivering fee" in 1994 and then to a "social fostering fee" in 2000. The term was included in the Population and Family Planning Law issued in 2001.
The National Population and Family Planning Commission said the social fostering fee was not a fine but the economic compensation that a couple must pay because an extra child uses additional public resources.
However, the fee is actually a punishment for middle income families while needy families could go bankrupt because of it, said Yang Zhizhu, a former college professor in Beijing who was charged more than 240,000 yuan for having an "unlawful" second child and fired by his employer, the China Youth University for Political Sciences.
He said wealthy families avoided paying the fee by giving birth to their extra children overseas.
Yang told the Investor Journal that his fee was calculated as nine times a Beijing resident's average income in 2009.
Wang Jianxun, a professor from China University of Political Science and Law, said the government could encourage couples to follow family planning but not force them to do so. "Illegally delivering a child is a wrong concept and charging a social fostering fee has no proper basis," Wang told the journal.
There was also concern about the different application of the fee across the country and how the money collected was used.
Under China's Population and Family Planning Law, the social fostering fee is set by each province and municipality.
In Shanghai, both husband and wife having a second child outside the one-child policy have to pay three times the previous year's average income, or three times their actual income if higher.
In Beijing, the fee is three to 10 times average income.
In Yang's case, he said the fee, almost the maximum allowed, was an "act of revenge" because he had publicly criticized the one-child policy and claimed that officials had illegally manipulated it on occasion.
Yang said a farmer in Beijing's Tongzhou District was charged 15 times the average income in 2007 as punishment for his "bad attitude."
"Charging the fostering fee is so random. In some regions, people are threatened with regard to children's residency registration and schooling, their apartment purchase and application for social welfare for not paying the social fostering fee," Yang said.
According to the Investor Journal, Zhejiang Province collected 894 million yuan in social fostering fees in 2009 and Anhui Province collected 845 million yuan in 2010.
Based on that data, the nation collects at least 20 billion yuan every year.
Only major cities such as Shanghai and Beijing hand in all fostering fee to the central government with family planning commission costs coming from other channels.
In most inland provinces, about 30 to 40 percent of the fee goes to county and town governments, which allocate a certain percentage to local family planning commissions. In Shandong Province, 85 percent of the fees are used by county-level family planning commissions.
China's birth control policy has been in operation for 30 years but the country is now facing an unhealthy population structure due to its low birth rate, according to experts.
"Only one fourth of Beijing couples eligible to have a second child want to make full use of the policy," said Ma Xiaohong, vice director of Beijing Population Research Institute.
"Financial burden, career development and whether grandparents have time to take care of a second child are the main factors for couples deciding not to have a second child."
They also question where the money raised, said to be as much as 20 billion yuan (US$3.17 billion) a year, goes.
He Yafu, a population policy researcher, said China started to collect the fee in 1980, since when 150 to 200 million people had been born in contravention of the one-child policy.
In the 1980s, the fee was said to be a fine for delivering "unlawful" children. The term changed to "unlawful delivering fee" in 1994 and then to a "social fostering fee" in 2000. The term was included in the Population and Family Planning Law issued in 2001.
The National Population and Family Planning Commission said the social fostering fee was not a fine but the economic compensation that a couple must pay because an extra child uses additional public resources.
However, the fee is actually a punishment for middle income families while needy families could go bankrupt because of it, said Yang Zhizhu, a former college professor in Beijing who was charged more than 240,000 yuan for having an "unlawful" second child and fired by his employer, the China Youth University for Political Sciences.
He said wealthy families avoided paying the fee by giving birth to their extra children overseas.
Yang told the Investor Journal that his fee was calculated as nine times a Beijing resident's average income in 2009.
Wang Jianxun, a professor from China University of Political Science and Law, said the government could encourage couples to follow family planning but not force them to do so. "Illegally delivering a child is a wrong concept and charging a social fostering fee has no proper basis," Wang told the journal.
There was also concern about the different application of the fee across the country and how the money collected was used.
Under China's Population and Family Planning Law, the social fostering fee is set by each province and municipality.
In Shanghai, both husband and wife having a second child outside the one-child policy have to pay three times the previous year's average income, or three times their actual income if higher.
In Beijing, the fee is three to 10 times average income.
In Yang's case, he said the fee, almost the maximum allowed, was an "act of revenge" because he had publicly criticized the one-child policy and claimed that officials had illegally manipulated it on occasion.
Yang said a farmer in Beijing's Tongzhou District was charged 15 times the average income in 2007 as punishment for his "bad attitude."
"Charging the fostering fee is so random. In some regions, people are threatened with regard to children's residency registration and schooling, their apartment purchase and application for social welfare for not paying the social fostering fee," Yang said.
According to the Investor Journal, Zhejiang Province collected 894 million yuan in social fostering fees in 2009 and Anhui Province collected 845 million yuan in 2010.
Based on that data, the nation collects at least 20 billion yuan every year.
Only major cities such as Shanghai and Beijing hand in all fostering fee to the central government with family planning commission costs coming from other channels.
In most inland provinces, about 30 to 40 percent of the fee goes to county and town governments, which allocate a certain percentage to local family planning commissions. In Shandong Province, 85 percent of the fees are used by county-level family planning commissions.
China's birth control policy has been in operation for 30 years but the country is now facing an unhealthy population structure due to its low birth rate, according to experts.
"Only one fourth of Beijing couples eligible to have a second child want to make full use of the policy," said Ma Xiaohong, vice director of Beijing Population Research Institute.
"Financial burden, career development and whether grandparents have time to take care of a second child are the main factors for couples deciding not to have a second child."
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
