How much is the land acquisition now? How is the land acquisition compensation and resettlement subsidy calculated? How is our village?

First, the question 1. It is unscientific and unreasonable to use the average annual output value of land as the standard for calculating land compensation, which violates the requirement of determining compensation amount by market value. According to the provisions of Article 47 of China's current Land Management Law, if land is expropriated, compensation shall be given according to the original use of the expropriated land. Compensation for requisition of cultivated land includes land compensation fee, resettlement fee and compensation fee for attachments and young crops on the ground. The land compensation fee is six to ten times the average annual output value of the cultivated land in the three years before expropriation. Resettlement subsidy is calculated according to the amount of cultivated land expropriated divided by the average amount of cultivated land occupied by each expropriated unit before land expropriation. Judging from the provisions of the current land management law in China, the basis for calculating land acquisition compensation is the annual output value of agricultural land. As we all know, the annual output value is a function of crop yield and price, and its level is influenced by agricultural production conditions and socio-economic conditions in the region, and has nothing to do with land price factors such as land acquisition location. [2] Moreover, the prices of agricultural products have been declining in recent years, and the compensation standards calculated according to the statutory standards can not solve the long-term livelihood of landless farmers at all. Theoretically speaking, the determination of land compensation fee is closely related to the location of land acquisition, regional economic development and regional infrastructure conditions, but not to the annual output value of land. Generally speaking, the current statutory compensation standard for land expropriation is divorced from the land market price, which seriously damages the rights and interests of farmers. 2. The compensation standard for ground attachments and young crops fees is set by the government, which causes low compensation and greatly damages the interests of the expropriated people. According to the provisions of Article 47 of China's current Land Management Law, the compensation standards for ground attachments and young crops fees shall be stipulated by the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government. Compensation according to the prescribed standards often leads to insufficient compensation, which greatly damages the interests of the land-expropriated people. Judging from the current actual situation in China, either the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government in some places have not stipulated the compensation standards for ground attachments and young crops fees at all, but have authorized the people's governments of cities and counties to make their own regulations; Either although the compensation standard is stipulated, it is often not revised for a long time, which is quite different from the actual value of the above-ground attachments and young crop fees. For example, in the process of demolition of land-expropriated farmers organized by Luolong District Government of Luoyang City in 2005, according to Luoyang Municipal Government's document (1997) No.71,namely "Compensation Standard for Ground Attachments on Construction Land in Luoyang City", the actual value of brick-concrete structure houses was 1000 yuan/square meter. As we all know, in the compensation system for house demolition in China, the starting point is also based on the standards formulated by the government. For this unreasonable compensation system, the Regulations on the Administration of Urban House Demolition revised in 200 1 clearly states that the amount of monetary compensation should be determined according to the location, use, construction area and other factors of the house to be demolished, and at the appraised price of the real estate market. No matter how the above provisions are implemented in practice, this clause has at least realized the return of compensation standards to market value from the institutional level. Similarly, farmers' houses are valuable, and the fairest way to measure their value is the market. The standards set by any organ are fairer and more acceptable than the values determined by the market. 3. The legal compensation standard is low, which is quite different from the actual land value. The benefits that the expropriated person should enjoy are forcibly turned over to the public. Collective land is the collective property of farmers, and its price is the market price of land ownership under the condition of market economy. Fair and reasonable compensation for land expropriation should be based on the principle of equivalent exchange, and farmers should be compensated in full according to market value. The market price includes not only the value of the land itself, but also the appreciation of the land. In practice, when the government expropriates land from farmers, it pays land compensation and resettlement subsidies according to agricultural income. However, when it auctions to the society, it trades at the market price of land, and the value-added reaches dozens or even hundreds of times, forming a huge price gap. Rural collective land owners do not share the value-added after land transfer. As for the reasons, some scholars believe that the market price of collective land consists of two parts: one is the "shadow price" formed by the capitalization of the average net income of agricultural land in the first three years, that is, "the value of the land itself"; Second, the "natural appreciation" after "urbanization", the state should compensate "the value of the land itself", and the natural appreciation part should be turned over to the public. [3] Natural appreciation of land is a term used by early economists (John Mill and henry george). After the appearance of the externality theory initiated by Marshall's economic principles, it is considered that this is the external income (for land suppliers) or external cost (for land demanders) caused by the externality of economic activities. It is because the radiation of land use activities around the land improves the location and makes it obtain external economic benefits, thus raising the land price. Therefore, the so-called "natural appreciation" is only an external economic benefit according to the externality theory. Externalities in economic activities can be seen everywhere. For example, Beijing has built a city rail, and house prices along the city rail have risen; Examples of harvesting external economic benefits abound, and these "external value-added" are not "returned to the public". Why should the external income obtained by farmers' land be "returned to the public at a higher price"? [4] This idea of "part of the price increase should be turned over to the state" completely ignores the property rights of farmers. Second, the reason analysis 1. The long-term unreasonable urban and rural policies in the planned economy period did not regard farmers as participants, sharers and beneficiaries of the market economy, which formed the concept of discriminating rural land rights and did not regard land as a commodity, which determined the simplification of compensation calculation standards and the highly centralized planned economic system in history, and formed the value orientation of "city-centered" that ignored the differences between urban and rural areas: national fairness. Under the background of planned economy, farmers are neither participants in the market nor beneficiaries of social development. In the process of land expropriation, the government often obtains land with low compensation fee and then sells it to the market with high transfer fee. However, the state does not recognize this huge appreciation of land acquisition compensation, nor does it allow landless farmers to profit from it. [5] This city-centered value concept in the planned economy period still affects and even dominates China's current land acquisition compensation system. From the perspective of social development, the process of transforming farmers' collective land into construction land should be the process of farmers sharing urbanization and industrialization, which should be conducive to narrowing the gap between urban and rural areas, rather than widening the gap between urban and rural areas. 2. At present, the rural collective land ownership stipulated by law is an incomplete power, and the contracted management right of land in the hands of farmers is a fictitious land use right, and the rural land price is not dominated by market rules. The fourth paragraph of Article 10 of the current Constitution was amended by China's constitutional amendment 1988 as follows: "No organization or individual may occupy, trade or illegally transfer land in other forms. Land use rights can be transferred according to law. " The limited circulation of collective land use right is recognized from the constitutional level. Subsequently, Article 80 of the General Principles of Civil Law, Articles 43 and 44 of the Land Management Law and Article 32 of the Land Contract Law all made further provisions on the transfer of collective land use rights and management rights. The Regulations on Deepening Reform and Strict Land Management issued by the State Council in June 65438+1October 65438+August 2004 stipulates that the right to use the land collectively owned by farmers in villages, market towns and towns can be transferred according to law on the premise of conforming to the plan. Although the Constitution stipulates that China's land is divided into state-owned and collective-owned, in fact, collective land ownership is a right without full power. The final disposal right of rural collective land belongs to the state, and the collective owner has no right to transfer the land, and the land income belonging to the collective is injected into the state treasury. [6] Although the land in the hands of farmers is a scarce resource, it does not abide by the laws of the market and does not have a balanced price. The government should be the defender and supervisor of land resources, but in fact it has become a participant in the game. Farmers have begun to realize that the land they own contains incomparable value to any commodity, and the desire to share this part of the income is unstoppable. What the government should do is to become the game rules maker for collective land to enter the primary market, provide rules for it, realize benefit sharing by collecting land turnover tax and land value-added tax, and then achieve the purpose of realizing public interests. [7] 3. The traditional land expropriation system was established under the planned economy system, and its compensation standard is related to the corresponding employment placement. However, under the market economy system, the traditional compensation standard for land expropriation can no longer meet the needs of farmers' survival, and employment placement has encountered great challenges in reality. In the period of planned economy, farmers can become "city dwellers" through land acquisition, and most farmers are willing to accept the resettlement of rural areas to non-agriculture. With the rapid development of market economy, this resettlement method is no longer attractive. At present, most places choose monetary resettlement as the main way, that is, one-time payment of resettlement subsidies, so that farmers can find jobs themselves. However, in the process of monetary resettlement, the "compulsory purchase" in which the government paid for a one-time buyout kicked the farmers away, causing great dissatisfaction among the farmers. [8] Land-lost farmers are at an obvious disadvantage in employment because of their low education level and lack of employment skills, and are easy to fall into the predicament of land-lost unemployment. In addition, monetary resettlement focuses on the immediate living arrangements of landless farmers, which is out of sync with the social security system. Because the resettlement subsidy is low, the problem cannot be effectively solved. In the case of difficulties in re-employment and insufficient financial support for social security, landless farmers are prone to worry about their future lives, leading to social instability. [9] Third, the stone of other mountains 1. Western countries that implement market economy have strict planning control over land use, and land expropriation belongs to changing planning. According to the requirement of trust protection principle, the change of planning should be based on fair compensation. Basically, developed countries in western market economy implement strict land use control system. The United States is the first country in the world to implement land use control. After 1950s, with the process of urbanization in the United States, American states required local governments to control the scale of urban development and protect high-quality agricultural land through laws, such as delineating urban growth lines, developing by stages and controlling the total amount of building permits. The land use in Britain strictly follows its urban and rural planning law, and the protection of cultivated land is bound by the planning law in order to seek the overall benefit of land use. France promulgated the agricultural guidance law in 1960, and then established the Land Consolidation and Rural Resettlement Company, which was responsible for land consolidation and maintenance of cultivated land for agriculture. France has brought farmland into the category of environmental protection in agricultural areas. Planning land to decide which land can be used for non-agricultural construction and which land is reserved for future urban development. For the land classified into agricultural areas, it is guaranteed that it will not be threatened by non-agricultural construction for at least 10 years after the land planning is announced, and investment in farmland is encouraged. [10] Changing land planning essentially violates the principle of administrative trust protection and damages the reasonable expectation of the administrative counterpart for administrative behavior. Therefore, the administrative organ should fulfill the obligation of compensation and fill the loss of trust of the interested parties. 2. The land in western market economy countries and regions is mainly privately owned, and the land market is relatively mature. The market-oriented characteristics of expropriation compensation standards are obvious. Private land is an important part of the private property system in western market economy countries, and individuals have complete rights to possess, use, benefit and dispose of the land they own. Of course, the state can force the purchase of private land for the public interest, which is what we call land expropriation. The difference between this kind of compulsory sales and general commodity sales lies in the state's compulsory purchase right, but it is still a normal market transaction price in terms of purchase price. In the United States, when determining the compensation standard, the Supreme Court usually evaluates the loss of the property owner according to the fair market value. Fair market value [1 1] is the most important and recognized valuation method in the United States. According to the third paragraph of Article 29 of the Japanese Constitution, land expropriation needs to compensate all losses, that is, to compensate the general market transaction price of the expropriated property. [12] Paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the German Basic Law stipulates that compensation shall be "determined with due consideration of public interests and the rights and interests of interested parties". In other words, compensation should be balanced with property losses, and the calculation basis is to consider the value of the expropriated property. The key here is the circulation value (market price). Usually, the basis of full compensation at least includes: property safety itself; Principle of equal burden; Existing market order based on market principle and competition principle. [13] 3. The protection system of private property rights in western market economy countries and regions is developed, and the participation rights and the right to know of land-expropriated personnel can be truly implemented. From the scope of compensation, direct loss compensation, indirect loss compensation, material compensation and spiritual compensation are all comprehensive. In most countries and regions, land requisitioners give land owners satisfactory compensation, which usually consists of land requisition fee and land compensation amount. Among them, the land expropriation fee is equivalent to the land value and is generally compensated according to the market price at the time of expropriation; The amount of land compensation is the compensation for the economic and other losses caused by the expropriation of land. Therefore, whether to levy, how to levy, how to make up and how to resettle are all independent of the government, with few social contradictions and a perfect relief system. In the United States, "reasonable compensation" refers to the fair market price of property compensation for all people, including the current value of property and the discounted price of future profits of property. The compensation for land expropriation in the United States is based on the market price before expropriation, which fully considers the interests of land owners, not only compensates the existing value of the expropriated land, but also considers the foreseeable and foreseeable future value of the land. The compensation for land expropriation in Britain includes land compensation, the standard of which is open market land price, in addition to demolition expenses and compensation for operating losses. The compensation for land expropriation in Germany includes: compensation for the loss of land or other subject matter, the standard of which is the transfer value or market value of land or other subject matter on the day when the expropriation organ decides to apply for expropriation; Compensation for operating losses, the standard is the same income that can be obtained by investing in other land; Compensate for all incidental losses of the requisitioned subject matter. [14] 4. Some suggestions 1. Reforming the current unreasonable land property right system also gives farmers the right to reform China's collective land property right system. Some scholars point out that farmers' right to complete the transfer of contracted land is recognized, including the right to transfer contracted land for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes; Farmers transfer land management rights in the non-agricultural land market, and voluntarily choose various contracting methods and development methods on the premise of complying with land use planning and land use control. [15] coincides with the above point of view. Some scholars believe that collective ownership should be further weakened and farmers' contracting rights should be strengthened within the existing institutional framework. This kind of contracting right gives the rights of possession, use, income and disposal to farmers, and farmers become real rather than nominal land owners. This fundamentally solves the problem of protecting farmers' rights and interests on the land, and also makes the protection of cultivated land a real topic. [16] The author believes that the key to the reform of farmland property rights is to further adjust the relationship between farmers and land and reshape the status of farmers as landowners. First of all, we should strengthen farmers' land use rights, and make it clear that land use rights are not limited to contractual management rights, but also include complete transfer rights and income rights, so that farmers can directly control the land. Secondly, eliminate all kinds of conceptual and artificial restrictions on the term of farmers' land use rights. 2. Formulate the land use planning law as soon as possible, and clarify the procedures for the generation and change of land use planning. Land use control refers to the system in which the state delimits land use areas, determines land use restrictions and requires land owners and users to use land strictly in accordance with the state land use regulations in order to ensure the rational utilization of land resources and the coordinated development of economy, society and environment. Although China's Land Management Law has also established a corresponding land use control system, there are no operational provisions on the formulation of land use planning, change procedures and compensation obligations accompanying land use planning changes. Therefore, China should formulate the land use planning law as soon as possible, improve the procedures for the generation and change of land use, and clarify the compensation obligation for the change of land use planning. 3. Formulate the land expropriation law as soon as possible, establish the system that the land market price is the compensation calculation standard, and realize the diversification of resettlement methods. As mentioned above, all countries in the world take the market value of land as the calculation standard of compensation, and at the same time establish a perfect market price evaluation mechanism. For example, in the land expropriation in the United States, the methods to establish market value include market data or comparative sales method, income method, substitution principle method, development cost method and so on. [17] After China recognizes farmers' complete land transfer rights, it is bound to establish corresponding compensation standards based on the market value of land. In addition, the ways of land expropriation compensation should be diversified. According to the laws of Japan, Germany and other countries, the compensation for land expropriation can be monetary compensation, or a combination of land retention compensation and alternative compensation. Judging from the current practice in various parts of China, land retention compensation is a very common way of compensation and resettlement. Therefore, China should establish diversified compensation and resettlement methods for land acquisition. 4. Change the concept and separate the land-lost compensation system from the social security system. In view of the current situation that farmers' livelihood is not guaranteed and their work is difficult to implement after losing their land, many scholars have proposed that establishing a basic livelihood security system for landless farmers and gradually merging it with urban social security is the ultimate way to solve the problem of landless farmers, and that part of the proceeds from land acquisition transfer should be used as the land acquisition adjustment fund for social security of landless farmers. [18] From the formal point of view, this idea seems to be to solve the national treatment problem of farmers and bring farmers into the social security system. In fact, farmers should enjoy the same treatment and protection as urban people. Both landless farmers and other farmers should enjoy the social security system, and farmers' land compensation should not be used to establish the so-called social security system. Therefore, we must change our ideas, gradually establish a rural social security system, and realize the separation of land acquisition compensation and social security system. According to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Land Law, the land compensation fee = the average annual output value of the cultivated land in the three years before expropriation × compensation multiple. According to whether the local government has formulated a unified annual output value standard, the calculation formula of land compensation fee is as follows: 1. In the case of formulating a unified annual output value standard, the calculation method of land compensation fee is based on the provisions of the State Council's Decision on Deepening Reform and Strict Land Management and the Notice of the Ministry of Land and Resources on Developing a Unified Annual Output Value Standard for Land Expropriation. The so-called unified annual output value standard for land expropriation is based on the average output and price of major agricultural products in the previous three years, and comprehensively considers the types, quality, grades and farmers' land requisitioned in a certain area (mainly in the administrative areas of cities and counties). The people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government shall formulate and publish unified standards for the annual output value of land acquisition in cities and counties, and the compensation for land acquisition shall be in the same place and at the same price. The unified annual output value standard should set a benchmark, which is generally adjusted every 3 to 5 years. Therefore, if the city or county where the expropriated land is located has a unified annual output value standard of land expropriation, it can be known from the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Land Law that land compensation fee = expropriated cultivated land area × unified annual output value standard per unit area of cultivated land × compensation multiple. 2. In the absence of a unified annual output standard, the calculation of land compensation fee is usually based on the statistical annual report to calculate the average annual output of cultivated land in the first three years (or the local government can determine the annual output by region according to the statistical annual output), in which the crop price is determined by selecting the higher price on the basis of investigating the market price and the national quotation (including the purchase price and the oversubscription price). And the annual output of cultivated land should also include the output of main and by-products of various crops. That is, in the absence of a unified annual output standard, combined with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Land Law, we can know that the land compensation fee = the average annual output of cultivated land in the first three years (including by-products) × the average crop price × the compensation multiple.