By theory, the annual burden of APBN State Budget could only be
suppressed by two simultaneous ways. I.e.to boost tax income and to reduce
debt. As know, year after year expenditure was in deficit and so was income. No
fooling, to compare Indonesia’s tax ratio with countries: Indonesia is not the
same but way behind.
Indonesia’s tax ratio which ideally could reach 20 percent of GDP only
settled at 12%. There were many indicators which explained why Indonesia’s tax
ratio was low against GDP. One definite thing was tax learning which was
reported to be around 38 percent.
If the notable leaking actually happened, the impact on APBN would be
most frightful because the spilled fund could have been used for development
activities, especially to consider that the leaking constituted a great deal of
the deficit amount which was predicted to be even bigger this year.
The deficit which was formerly only in expenditure was now also in
income sector. Moreover nearly 70 percent of APBN was obtained from taxes, so
spending activities would be hindrance since the income side was also
hindrance. Ideally financing was purely from trade balance as standard process
in the development process of a nation.
The fact was that Indonesia’s tax ration could not be the same as other
countries whose posture were similar to Indonesia’s posture like Vietnam,
Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines. Although corruption was also happening
there, they were truly resolute about pursuing it. All in their entire tax
ratio managed to touch 20% of GDP. Disheartening news came from Africa where
countries had their tax ratio posted at around 15%.
Again it was questionable why Indonesia’s tax ratio was so low. Report
of the Financial Examination Board [BPK] had it that there was under payment by
some oil gas contractor amounting to Rp5.42 trillion in 2010 that was one of
the leakage points.
The shortage of payment by contractors was because of unsynchronous
report between contractor’s oil-gas production report to BP Migas [now SKK
Migas] and tax payment report by contractors to the Directorate General of
Budget of the Ministry of Finance. There was also report that BPK detected tax
manipulation by an oil gas contractor worth USD 1.7 million [equal to Rp16.1
trillion].
A naïve question arose why the tax ratio which by logic should be 20
percent, was only 12 percent? The loss of 8 percent had eroded the quality of
APBN state budget and in the end the shortage had to be covered up with
overseas loan.
The rough calculation was like this assuming that tax ratio was 20
percent, the tax paid up to APBN State Budget might come to Rp1, 700 trillion.
In reality APBN only got Rp950 trillion because the tax ratio was only 12
percent. This was the so called lost income from tax which amounted to around 38
percent. Ironically felonious taxmen still kept their nasty habit to
collaborate with corrupted taxpayers resulting in eroded tax income.
What’s more, APBN was also burdened by energy subsidy which came to Rp320
trillion especially for oil fuel, all boiled down to deficit of state budget
and income shortage of 2013. The Government’s duty through the economic team
turned heavier while being chased by deadline of oil fuel subsidy.
It must be understood that target of APBN 2013 amounting to Rp1, 042
trillion in 2013 was not an easy target. With projected growth of 6.8% as
confided by APBN 2013, amidst confusion and uncertainty of oil subsidy policy,
it was near impossible mission to meet the targeted income.
That the growth indicator would not be met was already visible by growth
of quarter I 2013, which only settled at 6.02%. Yet over the same period last
year posted growth was higher, i.e. 6.3%; meaning there was degradation of
0.28% so realization of growth by year end soon would be 6.2 percent at the
most, a grim picture indeed.
Deficit in expenditure which was gradually followed by deficit in income
would put the APBN deficit ratio to GDP at 2.4% getting close to maximum 3
percent, as permitted by the Law. The Government’s indecisiveness in
determining oil pricing was the main cause of close-to-limit deficit against
GDP. Word was out that ratio of deficit would be increased to the level of
2.75%, as long as it was still below 3 percent.
One thing to be anxious about was if the Government was tempted to
suppress deficit ratio by increasing debt. Thankfully the Government’s debt
ratio against GDP was still relatively low in the range of 23% hence there was
still enough room for borrowing because the tolerated limit of debt ratio was
60 percent.
However to increase debt portion today was something unpopular step
among the public as it would burden the future generation. Increase of debt
only reflected Government’s failure in jacking up tax income.
In fact there was still other thinkable solution for the Government to
maintain health of APBN state budget, i.e. to reduce Ministrial expenditure of
less strategic an un prioritized posts, which could at least save Rp50
trillion. Austerity would be higher if the Government immediately increased
price of subsidized oil. Savings was reported at around Rp30 trillions. So the
total savings from reduced Ministrial expenditures and lowered oil price would
be Rp80 trillion.
Austerity of that amount would not only compensate tax income which was
under threat to drop in line with economic slowdown it could also be allocated
to increase fund for extending compensation for the poor. This social safety
network was necessary to keep people’s purchasing power from falling so economy
could remain productive. Consequently it would jack up tax income as business
players could still run their business normally. (SS)
Business News - May 22,2013
No comments:
Post a Comment