The problem of land transfer fee should be solved from the root.

To govern the problem of land transfer fee, we should not only solve the temporary disadvantages, but also focus on the long term. If the reform is carried on, the disadvantages of land transfer fees can be easily solved.

When the national large-scale audit of land transfer fee was carried out for the first time, the management of land transfer fee attracted attention again. According to data from the Ministry of Land and Resources, the national land transfer price rose from 129.6 billion yuan in 2001 to more than 4 trillion yuan for the first time last year, with an increase of more than 30 times in 13 years, totaling more than 194000 billion yuan. However, most of the huge funds of nearly 20 trillion yuan are in "closed operation", resulting in continuous violations and corruption. This can also be confirmed by the audit reports on land transfer fees in some areas in 2008 and 2010.

The problem in the management of land transfer fee is not the result of the lack of system, but the result of non-compliance of the system. The management and use of land transfer fees, laws and regulations such as the Land Management Law, the Circular of the General Office of the State Council on standardizing the income and Expenditure Management of the transfer of State-owned Land use Rights, the measures for the Administration of income and Expenditure for the transfer of State-owned Land use Rights, the measures for the Collection and use of paid Land use fees for New Construction Land, and opinions on further strengthening the Budget Management of Local Government funds are all regulated. "the separation of revenue and expenditure" and strengthening the coordination and convergence with the public budget are the basic requirements.

However, no matter how "plump" the system is, it can not stand the "bone feeling" in the actual operation: there are people who make false accounts to reduce fixed expenditure, are not included in local fund budget managers, and embezzlement and misappropriation are by no means an isolated phenomenon.

It is true that there are institutional flaws and lawbreakers taking advantage of the opportunity to seek rent, but the more fundamental reason is that in the account of land transfer fees, while recording the main extra-budgetary income of the local government, it also "records" heavy demands for local interests, as well as the inertia of local governance formed over the years. It is the two important tasks of local governance to develop both economy and public services. The single mode of economic growth leads to the single source of local finance, which limits the space of local governance. In the face of more and more complicated local affairs and rigid public expenditure, relying on the land price difference to supplement local revenue and make full use of the local debt platform has become a common choice in many places. Whether it is the obligation of local governance or the performance of debt repayment obligations, it objectively poses a challenge to the management of land transfer fees.

At the subjective level, the management level of many local budgets is still low, and there is a lack of scientific management of land transfer fees that should have been included in the fund budget. In addition, local money decision-making has not yet formed an institutional coordination model with institutions such as the National people's Congress, so land transfer fees are often dissociated from supervision.

It can be said that the chaos of land transfer fees shows some disadvantages, such as the disunity of local financial power, the lag of budget management, the unscientific decision-making mechanism and so on. Therefore, only by eliminating the malpractice from the root can the land transfer fee become a clear account.

First of all, it is necessary to combine the governance of the issue of land transfer fees with the in-depth reform of the fiscal and taxation system. The focus of the new round of fiscal and taxation system reform is to appropriately adjust the relationship between the central and local governments, so as to realize the relative unity of local financial power and administrative power as far as possible. Once the local government can obtain long-term stable financial revenue equivalent to its management affairs, then the degree of dependence on land finance will be reduced, and the environment for special use and sunny use of land transfer funds can be formed.

The issue of land transfer fee also reflects the practical need to speed up the revision of the budget law. Improving the scientific nature of the preparation and implementation of the budget is the core of the revision of the Budget Law. How to coordinate the local fund budget with the financial budget, and whether the National people's Congress can supervise the fund budget in the whole process, the land transfer fee will be an important assessment standard.

The problems of land transfer fees also call for the optimization of local governance. Under the prospect of local governments getting more financial power, how to standardize the power and how to improve the decision-making level of local spending is a major issue. Defining the power of affairs is also an important part of deepening reform.

To govern the problem of land transfer fee, we should not only solve the temporary disadvantages, but also focus on the long term. To carry out a large-scale audit of land transfer fees is the forerunner to create a reform environment, while the continuous reform in related fields is the winner or loser. If the reform is carried on, the disadvantages of land transfer fees can be easily solved.