YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 社保新规：开始抢钱了？为什么三十年前的旧账都不放过？社保新規：開始搶錢了？爲什麼三十年前的舊賬都不放過？夸克说|誇克说

社保新规：开始抢钱了？为什么三十年前的旧账都不放过？社保新規：開始搶錢了？爲什麼三十年前的舊賬都不放過？夸克说|誇克说 — Transcript

by 夸克说 · 6,665 words · 1,091 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00In recent days, the Chinese government
0:02has rolled out a series of social
0:04security measures that have sparked
0:05intense discussion. First, on October
0:0710th, Vice Minister of Human Resources
0:09and Social Security Li Zhong stated at
0:11a State Council Information Office
0:12press conference that they intend to
0:14optimize data-driven outreach to
0:15continue expanding coverage and ensure
0:17everyone is insured. There are still
0:18people not covered, and we must use
0:21various methods to locate them and
0:22proactively mobilize them to enroll.
0:25Subsequently, the State Taxation
0:26Administration issued Announcement No.
0:2920 of 2026, establishing a unified
0:31national benchmark for administrative
0:33tax penalties. These will be
0:34implemented starting November 1st of
0:36this year. To put it plainly, if your
0:38company has failed to pay or underpaid
0:40social security, you must make up the
0:41contributions immediately. Failure to
0:43do so will result in fines of one to
0:45three times the amount, plus a daily
0:47late fee of 0.05%. The regulation
0:49divides the unpaid amount into three
0:51tiers based on the proportion owed,
0:52with penalties ranging from a minimum
0:54of one time to a maximum of three times
0:56the amount, plus daily late fees.
0:58Furthermore, there is the Medical
0:59Security Law passed this August, which
1:01takes effect on January 1st next year.
1:03It clearly stipulates that citizens not
1:05covered by employee medical insurance
1:07or other state medical plans must join
1:08the urban and rural resident insurance,
1:10legally making medical insurance
1:12enrollment an obligation for every
1:14Chinese citizen. Company employees must
1:16enroll in employee medical insurance;
1:18those without it or other state
1:20coverage must enroll in the urban and
1:22rural resident plan. Some might be
1:24curious, asking: if I don't want to pay
1:26and agree with my boss to forgo social
1:28security in exchange for more cash, is
1:30that allowed? Many people have actually
1:32been doing exactly that. Sorry, but the
1:34September 14, 2025, judicial
1:36interpretation on labor disputes has
1:37already clarified this issue.
1:39Agreements between employers and
1:41employees to waive social security, or
1:43voluntary waivers by employees, are
1:45invalid and illegal. In other words,
1:48you cannot opt out. Moreover, these new
1:50payment rules do not mention a statute
1:52of limitations, meaning theoretically,
1:55if a company failed to pay or underpaid
1:57your social security, you can go back
1:59and demand full payment even decades
2:01later. Failing to pay is illegal. In
2:04fact, a large number of cases involving
2:05retroactive social security payments
2:07from many years ago have already
2:08appeared across the country these past
2:09few days. For instance, Xicheng
2:10District in Beijing publicly issued a
2:12notice this year to collect unpaid
2:13social security contributions from 19
2:14years ago. An employee had worked at
2:16the Beijing Xicheng District Huayu
2:18Training Center until May 2007. At the
2:20end of 2025, a complaint was filed
2:22demanding a school pay back pension and
2:24industrial injury insurance premiums
2:26for certain months between 2004 and
2:272006, totaling about 13,300 yuan.
2:29Another case is even more extreme: in
2:31March 2026, the Haidian District Social
2:33Security Fund Management Center
2:35required a company called Beijing
2:36Shilin Computer to pay back social
2:38security premiums from July 2000 to
2:40April 2001, totaling about 56,000 yuan.
2:42That’s basically reaching back 25
2:44years—tell me, isn't that absurd? And
2:46this payment isn't just the original
2:48amount; inflation factors must also be
2:50considered. Simply put, if you should
2:52have paid 500 yuan a month 20 years ago
2:54but only paid 200, you still owe 300 a
2:56month, which is 3,600 a year, right?
2:59Well, you can't just pay back 3,600
3:01today because of the issue of inflation
3:03. So how is it paid? It's calculated by
3:05taking the average wage of a region
3:06announced by the Statistics Bureau this
3:08year and dividing it by the average
3:09wage of that region 20 years ago to get
3:10a multiplier. For example, if the
3:12current average wage is three times
3:13what it was back then, you multiply
3:153,600 by three, paying a total of
3:1610,800 yuan. With these cases laid out,
3:18the situation is clear: the Chinese
3:20government is doing everything it can
3:22to collect social security funds. Those
3:24not enrolled must be found, underpaid
3:26premiums must be settled, and
3:28agreements made with employees years
3:29ago—even if they voluntarily opted
3:31out—don't count; even records from 20
3:33or 30 years ago can be dug up. In short
3:35, they will leave no stone unturned to
3:37collect this money. It's no wonder that
3:39in the last two days, various social
3:40media platforms have been filled with
3:42wailing. Many have even lamented that
3:44bosses will become a rare commodity, as
3:46large numbers of companies will go
3:47bankrupt, driving the overall
3:49unemployment rate to new highs.
3:51>> Soon, bosses will become a rare species
3:54. Really. Social security bureau
3:57directors, social security bureau
3:58directors. It’s either demanding back
4:01taxes or demanding back social security
4:03. So you must protect your bosses well.
4:06Otherwise, you will soon be unemployed.
4:09>> Someone will surely ask, even if they
4:11want to collect it, how does the
4:13government accurately know who isn't
4:14enrolled or who underpaid? How can they
4:16dig up records from decades ago? Even
4:19if they find out, if I don't have the
4:20money to pay, what can they do to me?
4:22Will they throw me in jail? Next, we
4:26will discuss these questions one by one
4:28and explore the impact this new round
4:31of social security regulations will
4:33have on ordinary people. First, let’s
4:36talk about finding people through data
4:38—how exactly do they find them?
4:39It’s actually not that mysterious.
4:41The most direct method is to compare
4:43lists: the Public Security Bureau has
4:44population and household registration
4:46information. The Human Resources and
4:47Social Security departments have
4:48enrollment records, and the tax
4:49department has tax payment information.
4:51Banks have corporate and personal
4:52accounts, while market regulators know
4:54which businesses have just registered.
4:55By cross-referencing this basic
4:57information, it's immediately clear who
4:59has never enrolled, who has stopped
5:00paying, and which businesses are
5:02operating without coverage, generating
5:04a list of targets for review. They can
5:06see exactly what your contribution base
5:08is and your actual monthly salary. In
5:10fact, as early as 2024, a State Council
5:12document on medical insurance
5:13explicitly required medical departments
5:15to coordinate with public security to
5:17cross-check enrollment data. This is
5:19why the new social security regulations
5:21require the involvement of public
5:22security departments. No wonder some
5:24people sarcastically ask why tracking
5:25down those without coverage feels like
5:27hunting down fugitives. And all of this
5:29is not just theoretical; it is already
5:31being practiced in many places. For
5:33example, Xiangyang, Hubei, previously
5:35reported that 15 departments, including
5:37public security, tax, and market
5:39regulation, established a data-sharing
5:41system to specifically identify
5:42businesses that pay taxes but have no
5:44social security coverage, contacting
5:46them to demand enrollment. Just these
5:48past few days, some netizens in the tax
5:49system have posted their feedback logs
5:50regarding the collection of social
5:52security arrears. Most people who
5:53receive these calls are extremely
5:55resentful. Some say they have no money,
5:57some flatly refuse, some make threats,
5:58and others just start swearing. Some
6:00might say, "What if I'm not in my
6:02hometown? My household registration is
6:04in the village, but I've been working
6:05away for years. How will you find me?"
6:07Don't worry, they have a way. An
6:09official 2025 report from Guiji Town,
6:11Fengtai County, Anhui, clearly stated
6:13that for migrant workers who haven't
6:15enrolled, they use one-on-one calls and
6:16ask relatives and friends to assist in
6:18mobilization. Even if you've moved,
6:20your parents, relatives, or fellow
6:21villagers might still be in the village
6:22. If the authorities can't contact you,
6:24they can certainly reach out to these
6:25people, right? This is the "you can run
6:27, but you can't hide" approach. Others
6:29might ask, "Even if you want to cover
6:30employees who left decades ago, I don't
6:32even have their records on my company
6:34computers anymore. How can you prove
6:35they worked here?" And how would you
6:37check whether I missed any payments
6:39back then? Moreover, even if banks and
6:40social security have the old transfer
6:42records, if the employee doesn't
6:43proactively apply, who would go back
6:45and dig up those old accounts? That is
6:47precisely the point. Because a key
6:49focus of the government's recent social
6:50security reforms is to continuously
6:52pressure ordinary people to piece
6:53together their coverage years. What
6:55does that mean? For instance, the
6:56minimum number of years one must
6:58contribute to receive a monthly pension
6:59is currently 15 years. Starting in 2030
7:01, the requirement increases by six
7:03months each year until it reaches 20
7:05years by 2039. For young people today,
7:07what used to be 15 years now requires
7:0920—a full five-year increase. For
7:11medical insurance in retirement, the
7:12required contribution period is even
7:14longer. Take Yantai, Shandong, for
7:15example: the previous requirement was
7:1725 years of contributions for men and
7:1820 years for women. But starting in
7:202026, it increases to 30 years for men
7:22and 25 for women. If you were
7:24approaching retirement and realized
7:26your contribution years weren't enough,
7:28wouldn't you try everything to find
7:30past employers and make up the missed
7:32payments? Even if you think you're
7:34still young, you have to hurry and find
7:36those employers to pay up. Given the
7:37current job market, who can guarantee
7:39they will have steady employment for
7:40the next few decades? If you haven't
7:42met the required years by retirement
7:43age, you’ll have to continue paying
7:45for social insurance out of your own
7:46pocket. This will significantly reduce
7:47the time you have left to actually
7:49collect your pension. In this situation
7:50, someone who wouldn't normally bother
7:52with the hassle now has more incentive
7:53to dig up old records and hold their
7:54former employers accountable. In fact,
7:56if you think about it, making mandatory
7:58contribution years a threshold for
8:00receiving retirement benefits—as
8:01China does—is actually quite
8:03unreasonable. For example, my wife
8:05worked in China for several years and
8:07paid into the pension insurance with a
8:09relatively high contribution base. We
8:11later immigrated, so she stopped
8:12contributing to China’s social
8:14insurance. By her retirement age, the
8:16minimum requirement will be 20 years;
8:18she certainly won't meet it and won't
8:20get a single cent. This is clearly
8:21unfair because she contributed every
8:23year and paid a substantial amount. She
8:25contributed to the pension fund just
8:27like everyone else, yet she won't see a
8:29dime when it's time for payouts. There
8:31are many others who haven't immigrated
8:33but, from graduation to retirement,
8:34might only work for a little over a
8:36decade, making it impossible to meet
8:38the 20-year requirement. Why should
8:40they be denied benefits? You could say
8:42they should receive less because of
8:43their shorter contribution period, but
8:44you can't say they aren't qualified to
8:46receive anything at all. In comparison,
8:47Canada's approach is much more
8:49reasonable. Canada has a pension plan
8:51called the CPP, where both the employer
8:52and employee contribute during one's
8:54working years. What are the eligibility
8:55requirements for it? You only need to
8:57have made at least one valid
8:58contribution. In other words, you only
9:00need to contribute for a single month
9:01to be eligible to collect money at
9:03retirement age. Of course, the monthly
9:04amount you receive is still tied to
9:05your contribution years, but they don't
9:07set a high barrier requiring you to
9:08have paid for 20 years or anything like
9:10that. The logic is simple: acknowledge
9:11the contributions I’ve already made.
9:13You shouldn't completely disqualify me
9:15from receiving benefits just because I
9:17haven't paid enough. Because pensions
9:18and basic health insurance are
9:20fundamental necessities. Of course,
9:21having a minimum contribution period
9:23isn't a practice unique to China. For
9:25instance, in the U.S., social security
9:26usually requires at least 10 years of
9:27contributions. Spain typically requires
9:29a minimum of 15 years. Japan used to
9:31even require 25 years, but China’s
9:33system is unique in that it’s one of
9:35the very few countries globally still
9:36continuously raising its minimum
9:38contribution period. Take Japan, for
9:40example; before 2017, the threshold for
9:41receiving a pension was 25 years of
9:43contributions, which was even higher
9:44than China's. But starting in 2017, it
9:47was lowered directly to 10 years. This
9:49means that seniors who had reached
9:50retirement age and contributed for 10
9:52years, even if less than 25, could also
9:53apply for a pension. There are many
9:55other countries that have similarly
9:56lowered their requirements. For example
9:58, South Korea lowered it from 15 to 10
10:01years, Vietnam from 20 to 15 years, and
10:03Mexico from 24 to 14.4 years. Only
10:05China is moving against the trend;
10:07instead of lowering it, it is
10:08significantly raising it. Besides that,
10:10this practice of significantly
10:11increasing the contribution period is
10:13actually creating inequality in a
10:14roundabout way. Why do I say that? For
10:16those in government agencies, public
10:18institutions, and state-owned
10:19enterprises, social security is very
10:21stable, and reaching 20 years is easy.
10:23But for those with less stable jobs or
10:24the flexible employment sector, who
10:26have no employer to cover costs and
10:27must pay out-of-pocket every month,
10:29it’s easy to have gaps in payments.
10:31The more easily one’s contributions
10:32are interrupted, the harder it is to
10:33reach the eligibility threshold. In
10:35this way, the so-called "pooling" ends
10:36up hurting many people in unstable jobs
10:38; even if they try to pay, they may
10:39likely never reach the required years
10:41and thus receive nothing. And when
10:42everyone pools into the social security
10:44account, it ends up benefiting those
10:45who are retired from within the system
10:47more. Furthermore, there is another
10:48issue: paying social security today
10:50isn't necessarily based on what you
10:52actually earn; there is also a minimum
10:54contribution base. How is this base
10:56determined? It is usually set based on
10:58a certain percentage of the local
11:00average wage for urban employed
11:01personnel as announced by the
11:03authorities. Take Beijing for example;
11:05starting in July 2026, the minimum
11:06monthly contribution base in Beijing is
11:087,270 yuan. In Shanghai, it’s 7,546
11:11yuan. But the reality is that many
11:13people working in Beijing and Shanghai,
11:15like restaurant servers, security
11:16guards, or recent graduates, don't earn
11:187,000-plus; they often only make 4,000
11:20yuan a month, yet they must still pay
11:22based on the 7,000-plus base. Take
11:23Shanghai, for example. If you pay based
11:26on a base of 7,500, for the five social
11:28insurances, you have to pay 10.56%,
11:29which is 792 yuan and 3 mao. But if
11:31calculated based on an actual salary of
11:334,000, you should only pay 420 yuan,
11:35meaning you overpaid by 372 yuan and 3
11:37mao. That’s not even counting the
11:38housing fund; if you include that, the
11:40gap is even wider. For someone earning
11:424,000 a month, overpaying by 370 is
11:44definitely not a small amount. And
11:46that's just for those with an employer;
11:48for flexible employment, where you pay
11:49for your own social insurance, it’s
11:51even more extreme. Because your total
11:52contribution ratio adds up to as much
11:55as 30%. Based on a 7,500 base, you have
11:57to pay 2,263 yuan and 8 mao, which is
11:591,063 yuan overpaid—equivalent to
12:01more than half of your actual income.
12:03Some might say, if it’s this unfair,
12:05I just won’t pay it, what can you do?
12:08Here’s the thing: in China, as long
12:09as the government wants to collect, and
12:11as long as you have money, they will
12:13always find a way to squeeze it out of
12:15you. For companies, according to the
12:16Social Insurance Law, relevant
12:18enforcement departments will first
12:19order the company to pay or make up the
12:21arrears. If they still refuse to pay,
12:22the authorities can legally check bank
12:24accounts and apply for a transfer order
12:26, letting the bank withdraw the
12:27corresponding funds. If there isn't
12:29enough money in the account, they can
12:31require the unit to provide a guarantee
12:32, sign a deferred payment agreement, or
12:34, if conditions are met, apply to the
12:36court to seize, seal, or auction
12:37property to cover the social insurance.
12:39In short, as long as you have
12:40attachable assets, they can make you
12:42cough up the money. Furthermore, the
12:44priority of these social insurance
12:46arrears is on par with employee wages,
12:47higher than that of suppliers and
12:49ordinary creditors. This means even if
12:51your business is already struggling and
12:53goes bankrupt from paying the lump sum,
12:54the remaining assets must first be used
12:56to pay the social insurance before
12:58paying off suppliers. Finally, if you
12:59have the ability to pay but
13:01deliberately hide or transfer assets,
13:02or refuse to comply with an effective
13:04court judgment, you could even face
13:06criminal charges in serious cases. Next
13:07, let's look at the individual side.
13:09You could, of course, refuse to pay or
13:11transfer your assets, or even enter a
13:12sham marriage to put property under a
13:14spouse’s name. But if they really
13:15want to collect, they have plenty of
13:17tactics. For example, in Guangdong
13:19these past few days, many teachers have
13:20warned parents in group chats that
13:22those who haven't paid their social
13:23insurance should do so immediately, or
13:25it could affect their children's
13:26entrance exams. As long as you have a
13:28weak spot, they will always have a way
13:30to handle you. Some might say here,
13:31social insurance is something employees
13:33are entitled to and a legal obligation
13:35for companies to fulfill. If they
13:36didn't pay or underpaid before,
13:37what’s wrong with making them pay it
13:39back now? You're finally starting to
13:41get it. I support the government in
13:43cracking down on these unscrupulous
13:44merchants to protect the rights of us
13:46workers. Sounds pretty righteous at
13:47first, doesn't it? But there is a
13:49problem here. If only a few bosses were
13:51secretly breaking the law by
13:52underpaying or skipping contributions,
13:54that might be their personal issue.
13:56However, if underpayment or non-payment
13:57isn't just a long-standing issue but
13:58involves a vast number of enterprises
14:00and has become the norm in certain
14:01industries, you can't just blame the
14:03bosses for being dishonest. You have to
14:04ask what created this situation. Is
14:07there tacit approval or even indulgence
14:08from the government? Because these
14:10enterprises are not underground
14:12factories. Their plants, employees,
14:13production numbers, and sales markets
14:15are all clearly visible to the
14:17government. If you claim to have wanted
14:19to solve these problems 20 years ago,
14:21why didn't you do it then? The reason
14:23is very simple. Because keeping
14:25corporate costs low, maximizing the
14:27human resource advantage, and gaining
14:28international competitiveness for
14:30exports has actually been the CCP's
14:32most important national policy for the
14:33past 30 years—bar none. Think about
14:35it: if China had aligned with developed
14:37countries over the last 20 or 30 years,
14:39giving all workers full social security
14:40, ending wage theft, and enforcing an 8
14:42-hour, 5-day work week, could China
14:44still be the world's factory today? The
14:46answer is obvious. So, social security
14:48arrears are not the individual actions
14:49of a few black-hearted bosses, but
14:51something specifically encouraged and
14:53indulged by the Party. This process
14:54doesn't require you to specifically
14:56issue a document saying which
14:57enterprises can skip payments or pay
14:58the bare minimum. You just need to turn
15:00a blind eye during enforcement, and
15:02this tacit approval will inevitably
15:04lead to bad money driving out good.
15:05Because rule-abiding enterprises
15:07definitely can't compete with those
15:09that underpay or skip payments, and
15:10client orders will all go to the latter
15:12. Going further, the pricing for the
15:14entire industry is built around these
15:15artificially low labor costs. Is that
15:17hard to understand? Let's look at an
15:19example. For instance, buying a sofa:
15:21Factory A pays full social security,
15:23price $ 5,000. Factory B pays no social
15:25security, price $ 2,000. I walk through
15:28the whole furniture mall and the quotes
15:29are basically all $ 2,000, so I
15:31naturally assume this sofa is a $ 2,000
15:32item, and the $ 5,000 one is the
15:34unscrupulous merchant. Thus, skipping
15:36social security becomes the industry
15:37standard in the furniture sector,
15:39because the value customers expect can
15:40only be achieved by not paying social
15:42security. In this situation, if the
15:43government suddenly decides to dig up
15:45old accounts and demands payment for
15:46the last 20 years of social security,
15:47companies are in big trouble. Because
15:49their price quotes have always been
15:50calculated based on a model of not
15:52paying social security. They never
15:53collected that extra money, and their
15:55revenue mostly went into purchasing
15:56materials; where would they get the
15:57money to cover those back payments? Not
15:59to mention having to pay for decades of
16:01arrears all at once. So, do you think
16:02the government knows the consequences
16:04of conducting a concentrated audit of
16:05back taxes? Of course they do. Did you
16:07know they even issued specific
16:08documents about it in the past? Back in
16:102018, the government planned to
16:11transfer the collection of more social
16:12security premiums from the social
16:14security departments to the tax
16:15authorities. As a result, it met with
16:16intense resistance from businesses. The
16:18reason is simple: the tax authorities
16:20have access to payroll and tax
16:22information. If they take over, past
16:24underpayments might be uncovered and
16:26collected all at once, creating
16:27unpredictable risks that businesses
16:29simply cannot afford. Consequently, on
16:31September 13, 2018, the State Taxation
16:33Administration issued a notice on the
16:35steady and orderly management of social
16:37insurance premium collection. It
16:38required tax departments at all levels
16:40not to organize self-initiated audits
16:41or retroactive investigations into
16:42social insurance arrears from previous
16:44years. By April 1, 2019, the General
16:46Office of the State Council released a
16:47comprehensive plan to reduce social
16:49insurance premium rates, allowing
16:51provinces with pension contribution
16:52rates higher than 16%to lower them to
16:5416%. On the other hand, it reiterated
16:55that during the reform of the
16:57collection system, there should be no
16:58self-initiated concentrated collection
16:59of historical arrears to avoid causing
17:01operational difficulties for businesses
17:02. You see, the government is well aware
17:04that if they aggressively audit old
17:06accounts, a large number of businesses
17:07could collapse, inevitably leading to
17:09mass unemployment. In fact, if you
17:10compare this with other countries,
17:12you'll find that there are more options
17:14for dealing with historical arrears
17:15than just short-term concentrated
17:17collection. Take Brazil, for example.
17:19On May 27, 2009, Brazil passed Law No.
17:2211,941, providing special repayment
17:24arrangements for social security
17:26arrears that fell due before November
17:2830, 2008. How were these arranged? They
17:31could be repaid over a maximum of 180
17:33months, or 15 years. Depending on the
17:35specific situation, a certain
17:36percentage of fines, interest, and
17:38surcharges were waived or reduced. See,
17:40they didn't say that businesses didn't
17:42have to pay what they owed, but
17:43acknowledged that historical arrears
17:45need a realistic repayment plan,
17:46allowing operators to pay back slowly
17:48rather than driving them to ruin.
17:50Another case is Italy. According to the
17:53relevant laws passed by the country in
17:542018 and 2022, some small social
17:56security debts that meet specific
17:57criteria and do not exceed 1,000 euros
17:59can be directly written off. This is
18:00especially true for some self-employed
18:02individuals 'social security debts. By
18:04October 11, 2023, the Italian social
18:05security department specifically
18:07clarified that after these debts are
18:08written off, the monthly pension
18:09received will also be reduced. If you
18:11don't want a reduced pension, you can
18:13apply for a recalculation and pay the
18:15arrears. So you see, regarding the
18:16historical problem of social security
18:17arrears, countries around the world
18:19have actually come up with various
18:20different approaches. But basically,
18:22none are as extreme as China,
18:23collecting so tightly and harshly to
18:25the point of being exploitative. So why
18:27did the CCP, which twice issued
18:29directives to ban aggressive collection
18:31, suddenly launch a crackdown now? The
18:33reason is simple: the pension fund is
18:35out of money. If they don't act
18:37ruthlessly, today's retirees won't
18:38receive their pensions. To understand
18:40this issue, you first need to know that
18:42pension funds in most countries
18:43generally follow one of two systems.
18:44One is called the fully funded system,
18:46which in plain language means saving
18:48money for yourself. While you are still
18:50working, you deposit a portion into
18:51your own account to invest, and upon
18:53retirement, you can make regular
18:54withdrawals. For example, Canada is
18:56primarily based on this funded system.
18:59Its retirement account is called the
19:01RRSP, where you can contribute up to 18
19:03%of your annual income until you retire
19:05. Like my own RRSP account, I use it
19:07for regular investments in US stocks.
19:08This account is under my control alone;
19:10the government cannot touch it. Beyond
19:12that, the other system is called
19:14pay-as-you-go. This means the money
19:15paid by today's workers is used to pay
19:17pensions for today's retirees, rather
19:18than being saved for the individuals
19:19themselves. You cannot access the money
19:22you pay in. Years later, when these
19:23young people retire, they will rely on
19:25those who follow to pay their pensions.
19:27China primarily uses the pay-as-you-go
19:30system. Note that this distinction is
19:32not absolute. Because Canada also has a
19:34small portion of pension programs that
19:35are pay-as-you-go. And China also has a
19:37small amount of funded components, such
19:38as supplementary pension insurance.
19:40This only refers to which system is
19:42dominant. Regarding pay-as-you-go, you
19:44can actually see it has a major bug,
19:46which is population aging. Because
19:48aging means fewer people paying in and
19:50more people collecting, which will
19:52gradually lead to a deficit. According
19:54to data from the National Bureau of
19:56Statistics, the ratio of China's
19:58population aged 15-64 to those 65 and
20:00older was about 9.4: 1 in 2005. By the
20:02end of 2025, it had already dropped to
20:054.3: 1. In 20 years, the number of
20:07working-age people for every elderly
20:08person has more than halved. And the
20:10pressure will continue to increase.
20:12According to official forecasts, by
20:14around 2035, the population over 60 in
20:16China will exceed 400 million,
20:17accounting for over 30%of the total
20:19population. At that time, it will be
20:20almost one worker supporting one
20:22elderly person. So what can be done?
20:24The most direct way is to adjust both
20:26ends. On the revenue side: collect as
20:28much as possible, as quickly as
20:29possible. On the expenditure side:
20:31delay payments. Things like
20:32strengthening collection, pursuing
20:33missed payments, and digging up old
20:34records belong to collecting more.
20:36Increasing the minimum contribution
20:37period is requiring you to pay for
20:38longer. Delaying retirement means you
20:40start receiving your pension later. For
20:42example, if a male employee was
20:43supposed to retire at 60 but it is
20:45pushed to 63, he must continue working
20:47and contributing for those three years.
20:49The fund collects three more years of
20:51payments, and his pension start date is
20:53delayed by three years. That’s a
20:54six-year swing, which significantly
20:56eases the payout pressure on the fund.
20:58Furthermore, in the foreseeable future,
21:01the male retirement age will almost
21:03certainly not stop at 63, but will
21:05continue to rise to 65, 70, or even
21:07higher. Years ago, when news broke
21:09about the social security fund's
21:11deficit, I tweeted that China’s
21:13social security would never collapse.
21:15The Party will always find ways to
21:17shift the risk onto ordinary Chinese
21:19people, prioritizing the most
21:20vulnerable groups to protect its own
21:23interests. A typical example of this is
21:24the so-called "debt resolution" by
21:26local governments over the past two
21:27years. At first glance, "debt
21:29resolution" sounds like the government
21:30is raising money to pay back what it
21:32owes businesses. That is why whenever
21:34the central government issues
21:35directives for local governments to
21:36tackle debt, there are always those who
21:38applaud without understanding the
21:39reality. But what is the actual
21:41situation? On September 20, 2023, the
21:43State Council executive meeting chaired
21:45by Li Qiang reviewed and passed a
21:47special action plan to clear arrears
21:48owed to enterprises. It required
21:50provincial governments to clear local
21:52arrears and mandated state-owned
21:53enterprises to repay debts, emphasizing
21:55substantial repayment. Yet, just one
21:57month later on October 26, the*
21:59Securities Times*disclosed a specific
22:01plan by units under the Dali municipal
22:03government in Yunnan to repay private
22:05sector debts through debt restructuring
22:06. The two units that owed money were
22:08the Tonghai County Water Conservancy
22:09Bureau and a company called Dali Erhai
22:11Protection Investment and Construction
22:12Co., Ltd. This is a local state-owned
22:13investment platform responsible for
22:15Erhai Lake's management. The party owed
22:17money was a private enterprise from
22:18Wuxi, Jiangsu. It is called Wuxi
22:20Delinhai Environmental Technology Co.,
22:23Ltd. What does Delinhai do? They
22:25specialize in lake algae treatment. The
22:27government hires them to treat lakes,
22:28providing equipment, building stations,
22:30and handling follow-up maintenance. As
22:31it turns out, they did the work but
22:33couldn't get paid. Taking the Tonghai
22:35County Water Conservancy Bureau case:
22:37from August 2020 to the end of March
22:392023, Delinhai provided services under
22:42contract, and the bureau fell 65.39
22:44million yuan in arrears. How was it
22:46resolved? Both sides signed an
22:48agreement: if the Water Bureau paid 45
22:50million yuan in a lump sum by the
22:51deadline, Delinhai agreed to write off
22:53the remaining 20.39 million yuan,
22:55effectively forfeiting nearly a third.
22:57In other words, after the government
22:58delayed paying the private firm for so
23:00long, the company not only received
23:01zero interest but was forced to take a
23:0330%discount on the original payment. As
23:04for how you pay migrant workers,
23:06suppliers, or bank interest, or whether
23:08you go bankrupt, that's not their
23:10concern. But do you think that's
23:12outrageous enough? In fact, these cases
23:14that get exposed and touted as
23:15government achievements in debt
23:17resolution are already the best-case
23:18scenarios. Because in real life, the
23:20standard operating procedure is
23:22actually a 70%discount. For instance, I
23:24got involved again this morning when a
23:26certain construction group called me.
23:27The other party told me directly that
23:29the group is now initiating a "
23:30preliminary debt resolution" process. I
23:32asked, what kind of process is this
23:34preliminary debt resolution? How
23:35exactly is this debt being settled?
23:37They said the money owed to you would
23:39be paid at a 30%rate; if you agree, we
23:40sign an agreement immediately and
23:42transfer the funds. I asked, what if I
23:44don't agree? They said that's fine too,
23:47but they're filing for bankruptcy next
23:49year, at which point you might not get
23:51a single cent. And this isn't even the
23:54most extreme case. Under many videos
23:56where construction bosses vent their
23:57frustrations, people chime in saying
23:58that local governments in their areas
24:00only offer 10 cents on the dollar,
24:01which is basically no different from
24:02robbery. It’s no wonder the State
24:04Council's March 2025 revision of the
24:05regulations on payment for small and
24:07medium-sized enterprises specifically
24:08mandates that companies cannot be
24:10forced to accept unreasonable payment
24:11terms. Because those at the top know
24:13that slashing debt through deep
24:14discounts is the norm for local
24:15governments. So you see, the
24:17relationship between the government and
24:19the public in China is extremely
24:20unequal. The government can drag out
24:22payments to private business owners—
24:23from project funds to migrant wages—
24:25for over a decade, finally forcing you
24:27to sign a discounted settlement to wipe
24:28the slate clean. If you don't sign, you
24:30won't get a single penny, and they'll
24:32just keep stalling. But conversely, if
24:33companies or individuals are behind on
24:35social security, people jump to say you
24:36must pay according to the law, and if
24:38you don't pay into social security, who
24:39will cover you when you're old? Those
24:41who say this probably don't realize
24:43something. China's own pension system
24:44already covers a large number of people
24:46who didn't pay into social security. As
24:48we mentioned before, China’s pension
24:49insurance is primarily "pay-as-you-go,"
24:51which has many drawbacks. So why adopt
24:53"pay-as-you-go" in the first place,
24:54instead of having people save for
24:55themselves like in many other countries
24:57? Because there is a systemic
24:58transition issue involved here. We know
25:00that in the era of a planned economy,
25:02individuals didn't need to pay social
25:03security like they do today. You worked
25:05in a factory, and after you retired,
25:06the factory paid your pension. During
25:08that process, you didn't have an
25:10individual pension account of your own.
25:11To put it plainly, everyone's pension
25:13in the whole factory was in one big
25:15pool; whoever retired took from it. So
25:17where did the money in that big factory
25:18pension pool come from? According to
25:20the 1951 Labor Insurance Regulations,
25:22the principle was that enterprises paid
25:24, while individuals did not.
25:25Enterprises contributed 3%of their
25:27total payroll to labor insurance funds,
25:28without deducting it directly from
25:30workers' wages. Meanwhile, government
25:31officials took a completely different
25:33path. Their salaries and retirement
25:35pensions were paid directly by the
25:36government treasury. Since they were on
25:38the government payroll, they lacked
25:39business revenue like enterprises, and
25:41unlike workers, they didn't contribute
25:433%of their wages; thus, officials had
25:45no personal pension accounts and
25:47naturally saved nothing. After the
25:48Reform and Opening-up, when a pension
25:50system requiring joint contributions
25:51from employers and employees was
25:52introduced, problems arose. Imagine
25:54someone who has worked for over 30
25:55years and is nearing retirement. If you
25:57tell them now that they must pay for
25:59their own pension from now on. Yet they
26:00never had a personal account before and
26:02haven't saved a cent; what will they do
26:03upon retirement? You can't just say
26:05their past 30 years of service don't
26:07count and that they must start
26:08contributing from today to be eligible
26:10for payments. To solve this, the
26:11government had to choose a "
26:13pay-as-you-go" approach and introduced
26:15"deemed contributions"—even if you
26:17didn't pay in the past, due to
26:18historical factors, we'll treat it as
26:20if you did, letting today's workers
26:22support those who didn't contribute,
26:24gradually transitioning everyone to a
26:26contribution model. In this process,
26:28government agencies and public
26:29institutions were the last to start
26:31contributing, not officially beginning
26:32until 2014. You see, the government
26:34understands that historical issues
26:36affecting the vital interests of many
26:38cannot be handled with a "
26:39one-size-fits-all" approach; they often
26:41set transition periods so that the
26:43costs of institutional change aren't
26:44dumped onto one group all at once. So
26:46the question is, why did they know to
26:48digest this slowly in the past, yet
26:50seem so urgent today? The reason isn't
26:52complex: slowly digesting historical
26:54debts requires someone to pay upfront.
26:56And today, there are fewer and fewer
26:58people in China with the capacity to
26:59pay upfront. At the start of the Reform
27:01and Opening-up, you could rely on "
27:02pay-as-you-go," having new workers
27:04support the previous generation,
27:05because there were many young people
27:07and few elderly. Take 1982 as an
27:08example: the median age of the
27:10population was 22.9, the elderly aged
27:1365 and above made up only 4.9%, and
27:15there were 12.5 young people for every
27:17elderly person. By 2025, the median age
27:20has reached 40.1, the elderly
27:21proportion is 14.9%, and there are 4.3
27:24young people for every elderly person.
27:26Within the next several years, this
27:27ratio will further drop to one-to-one;
27:29how could you not be urgent under these
27:31circumstances? If there’s no one left
27:33in the future to fill this hole, won't
27:35they just have to squeeze today's young
27:36people to death? As for how much damage
27:38this will cause to current businesses
27:40or how many people will lose their jobs
27:42, that’s a problem for later. Let’s
27:43just get through the current crisis
27:45first. At this point, some people will
27:47surely have a question. Since the
27:49pressure on pension expenditures is so
27:50high, why not simultaneously lower the
27:52benefits of those currently collecting
27:53pensions, especially the old cadres in
27:55the system? It's rumored online that
27:56the number of retirees in China with
27:58pensions over 10,000 yuan is as high as
27:5910 million, which is more than the
28:00number of people earning a monthly
28:01salary over 10,000 yuan. And there’s
28:03a high probability that these two
28:04groups are actually the same families.
28:05Isn't that just asking for trouble and
28:07resentment? Regarding this issue, I
28:08talked with my parents about it two
28:10years ago. My parents and several of my
28:12aunts and uncles are all retired from
28:14the state system. But they are actually
28:15quite dissatisfied with the current
28:17retirement arrangements; the reason for
28:18their dissatisfaction is that they feel
28:19their pensions are too high, higher
28:21than most people currently working. And
28:22it’s not just higher than many
28:24private sector jobs, but even higher
28:25than some people currently working
28:26within the system. Social security has
28:28been tight these past two years; back
28:29in my hometown, many public
28:30institutions, teachers, doctors, nurses
28:32, and even local education departments
28:33and government offices have started
28:35cutting salaries. Only the pensions of
28:37my parents and their peers haven't been
28:38cut; in fact, they’ve been steadily
28:40increasing. Of course, not everyone is
28:42the same; their classmates who retired
28:44from factories aren't as lucky, getting
28:46just over 2,000 and struggling.
28:48Regarding this, they agree that the
28:49Party does this to set an example for
28:51those currently working in the system.
28:53The message is that while the country
28:55is in difficulty and your income has
28:57indeed decreased, don't hold any
28:59resentment. As long as you stay loyal
29:01to the Party, once you retire, you too
29:02can enjoy a good life just like those
29:04old cadres before you. This is what I
29:06mentioned earlier: when difficulties
29:08arise, the Party will always prioritize
29:10making those furthest from power suffer
29:11while trying to safeguard the interests
29:13of those close to it. At the end of
29:15this program, I want to talk about the
29:16impact of this on China's future. On
29:18October 14, 2026, data released by the
29:20People's Bank of China showed that by
29:22the end of September, China's broad
29:24money supply, or M2, had reached 359.63
29:26trillion yuan, a year-on-year increase
29:28of 7.2%. This is higher than the
29:30combined M2 of the world's largest
29:31economies, including the U.S., Canada,
29:33the EU, and Japan. Furthermore, China
29:35has been stimulating consumption all
29:37year, with the central bank injecting
29:38liquidity and cutting rates, and the
29:40government rolling out various
29:41subsidies and incentives. They’ve
29:42used every trick in the book, yet
29:44consumption remains stagnant, and
29:45inflation has stayed near zero or even
29:47turned negative. This has become an
29:48unsolved mystery of the Chinese economy
29:50. But this year’s Nobel Prize in
29:52Economics explains this phenomenon
29:54perfectly. On October 12, American
29:55economists Robert Hall and Michael
29:57Medford jointly won the 2026 Nobel
29:59Prize in Economics. A core concept in
30:01Hall's research is that families plan
30:03their consumption based on their
30:05judgment of the future. Simply put, if
30:07I know my job is stable and my income
30:09will likely grow in the coming years, I
30:11feel confident about buying a car or
30:13renovating my home today. Even if I
30:15need a loan, I know how I will be able
30:17to pay it back. But if I’m worried
30:18about being laid off, feel that
30:19business will only get harder, or fear
30:21having no support in old age and being
30:22unable to afford medical care, I’ll
30:24save whatever money I have today. In
30:25this situation, no matter how low your
30:27loan interest rates are, what appeal do
30:28they have for me? Because even if you
30:29charged zero interest, I’d still be
30:31afraid that I wouldn't be able to pay
30:32it back. This logic applies to
30:33businesses as well. If the country you
30:35are in keeps you on edge, constantly
30:37digging up old issues from ten or
30:38twenty years ago to impose massive
30:40fines, and you face the risk of
30:41bankruptcy at any moment, would you
30:43dare to take out loans to expand
30:44production and hire more people?
30:46Certainly not. You would surely want to
30:48exchange your money for dollars and
30:50move to a country with predictable
30:51policies and a reasonable government,
30:52even if labor costs there are higher.
30:54Under these circumstances, would you
30:56still want to pay social security in
30:57this country? No, because you know this
30:59government has no credibility. They
31:01tell you to pay for 20 years today, but
31:03by the time you retire, it might turn
31:05into 25, 30 years, or even longer.
31:06Regardless, even if they do that, there
31:08is nothing you can do about it. Alright
31:10, that's it for today's show. If you
31:12have any questions, feel free to leave
31:14a comment or send me an email. See you
31:17next time.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 社保新规：开始抢钱了？为什么三十年前的旧账都不放过？社保新規：開始搶錢了？爲什麼三十年前的舊賬都不放過？夸克说|誇克说 by 夸克说, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,665 words across 1,091 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.