What are the main problems in the construction of social security system in Wuxi?

1. The construction of rural social security system is seriously lagging behind. At the beginning of its establishment, the social security system took a road of separating urban and rural areas. There are great differences between urban social security system and rural social security system, which are in a serious imbalance state. The social security system is dominated by cities, and social security funds are mainly allocated to cities. So far, the construction of urban social security has been quite complete, including pension insurance, medical insurance, work injury insurance, maternity insurance, unemployment insurance, social assistance and minimum living security system. Urban residents not only enjoy stable institutional security, but also have a social security level far higher than that of farmers. In contrast, the social security system in rural areas is far behind, the old-age insurance is not fully developed, and medical insurance and maternity insurance are only piloted in some areas. Judging from the amount of social security expenditure, the difference between urban and rural areas is even greater. This dual social security system, which divides urban and rural areas, seriously distorts the fairness principle of the social security system. People just enjoy different "welfare benefits" because of their different origins in urban and rural areas. This institutional arrangement has not only failed to maintain social equity, but has aggravated the gap between urban and rural areas, which is very inconsistent with the requirements of the social equity guarantee system.

2. The social security system for marginal groups such as migrant workers has not yet been established. As the product of socialist market economy, migrant workers have made due contributions to urban economic development and urban construction. However, under the current dual economic structure, migrant workers separated from rural areas are not accepted by cities. They are neither real farmers nor pure workers, and they are also in a marginal position in the social security system. The Regulations on Minimum Living Security for Urban Residents promulgated and implemented in China clearly stipulates that urban residents who hold non-agricultural registered permanent residence and whose per capita income is lower than the minimum living security standard for local residents have the right to get basic living material help from the local people's government. This protection does not include migrant workers working in cities. In fact, with the deepening of market-oriented reform, migrant workers have become an indispensable part of the city. Many farmers leave their homes to work in cities and engage in many high-risk and low-income jobs, but they can't get basic social security when they work hard, which is extremely unfair to them. Moreover, compared with urban residents, migrant workers often face greater unemployment risk, industrial injury risk, medical risk and so on. And their ability to take risks is weaker, and they need social security assistance more. This is an urgent problem in the construction of social equity and security system.

3. The income adjustment is weak and the redistribution function is distorted. An important function of social security system is to adjust the gap between the rich and the poor through income redistribution and "iron out" social injustice, so as to achieve the purpose of ensuring social equity and promoting economic development. However, in practice, the adjustment function of the current social security system is weakened, the income redistribution function is distorted, and it has not played its due adjustment role. The current social security system not only fails to play the role of "regulator" of redistribution, but also expands this trend. Even for the social security of urban residents, there are still unreasonable places. The social security of urban residents is mainly limited to government institutions and state-owned units, while some self-employed, private enterprises and foreign-funded enterprises are marginalized or even separated. Social security benefits vary greatly in different industries and different ownership systems. The result is usually that the better the welfare, the higher the employee's income and the more comprehensive the social security, which runs counter to the original intention of social security. For example, the wages of employees in some monopoly departments concerned by the society are obviously high. Coupled with the secondary distribution of social security, the income gap of employees in other departments is more obvious. These are all theoretical analyses, and you can find some examples to supplement them.