“Relax household registration and other policy restrictions, and allow retired parents of only children who live and work in a different place to settle down where their children live and work, and enjoy the same treatment as local residents in terms of social security and medical insurance.” National People’s Congress representative, Jiangxi Kong Falong, Secretary of the Party Committee and Chairman of the Provincial Rural Credit Cooperative Union, said in an interview with reporters during the National Two Sessions in 2021. Kong Falong said that the one-child family pension has become a major livelihood issue before us, which urgently needs to be paid close attention to and properly resolved. (China News Service)
Many respondents did not understand the real intention of this proposal. Do you think this is to solve the problem of elderly care for the empty-nest elderly? NO. This proposal essentially revolves around “promoting the willingness to reproduce”, and basically solves the problems of the children’s generation. In Gao Zan’s answer, he worried that this kind of policy would cause a large number of elderly people to flood into first-tier cities. In fact, it is completely unnecessary! This policy is like suggesting to give a RIMOWA suitcase worth 9999 to the owner of a Porsche. Do you have to worry about the luxury car being sold out because of this gift? See clearly that the people benefited by this policy must meet three conditions: First, the child is an only child, that is to say, the parents can only enter the nursing home other than “turning in” this child, and there is no other choice, which means that they can only move to the front line in their old age. urban life. Second, the children must have a house in the first-tier cities, otherwise, will their parents and you fall into the collective household registration? Third, children must register in first-tier cities. Those who meet these three conditions are actually those families who have completed the stratification of classes and are bound to settle in first-tier cities in the future. Beijing’s one-child parents depend on the policy. These old people have spent their entire lives to allow their children to complete their studies, and they emptied their wallets to help them buy houses and settle in first-tier cities. There is a high probability that they have to help their children as much as possible to take care of their grandchildren before they lose the ability to work. Shouldn’t they solve basic problems such as hukou and medical insurance so that they have no worries? Even without this policy, these elderly people are completely affordable. In fact, they still have to live in first-tier cities and seek medical treatment, but they are just a bit more troublesome. The purpose of this motion now is to allow these old people to firmly stick to their children’s determination, instead of always using the idea of ”waiting to be old and unable to help their children, but to return to their hometown”, and even sell their hometown properties to buy homes in first-tier cities. This objectively increases the family background and risk-resistance ability of the children’s small family, which can improve the family’s willingness to bear children to a certain extent. Such new middle-class families with registered permanent residence and house are China’s main hope for activating the willingness to have children. This is the real starting point of this proposal. Speaking of this, I am afraid that you who are clamoring that non-only children are being “discriminated” will understand. Why must it be emphasized that the object of the policy is the only child? Can parents who are not only children sell their 180-square-meter house in the second, third, fourth, and fifth-tier cities and invest in a child in their first-tier city so that they can replace the 80-square-meter two-bedroom house with a 120-square-meter school district housing in the core area? Can a parent who is not an only child ensure that he/she is always with his/her child in a first-tier city and does not need to be distracted to take care of the grandchildren of other children? The following is the original answer. Agree with both hands! It is a good proposal that solves practical difficulties and is feasible and feasible. Take Beijing as an example, there has long been a policy that allows only children to handle household registration for their parents, but medical insurance can still only be transferred from another place. In fact, the elderly live and seek medical treatment in big cities, but they can’t enjoy the same reimbursement standards, and there is also the trouble of returning to their place of origin for reimbursement (although there is an off-site reimbursement policy). That being the case, in the context of encouraging childbirth, why can’t the elderly who have given up their leisurely old age in order to take care of their grandchildren can live more steadily in the first-tier cities and have no worries about the future?