The Pros and Cons of Tapera

Tapera, or the People's Housing Savings, is a program designed to assist low-income individuals in Indonesia to afford housing. The initiative involves mandatory contributions from employees, aimed at pooling resources to provide affordable housing loans. Despite its good intentions, Tapera has sparked significant debate regarding its feasibility and implementation.

The primary aim of Tapera is to help low-income earners save enough to purchase a house. Even those with low incomes find it difficult getting homes due to the rising cost of real estate. Tapera seeks to minimize this issue by providing employees with the opportunity to save progressively by means of crucial deductions from their salaries.

The most criticism that spread in society due to misunderstanding about Tapera is in terms of its mechanism system. Contributors to Tapera have a portion of their salaries deducted monthly, which accumulates over time. For example, a worker earning IDR 5 million per month would have 2.5% deducted, contributing IDR 125,000 monthly. After accumulated over 30 years, this amounts to IDR 45 million are insufficient to buy a house, as housing prices far exceed this amount.

However, that is not the actual mechanism system from Tapera. It is important to understand that Tapera is not just about saving to buy a house directly with the accumulated funds. Instead, it is about pooling resources to provide affordable housing loans to those who qualify. Similar to BPJS in the healthcare sector, Tapera operates on the principle of mutual aid. The funds collected are partly invested to grow the pool and partly used to provide low-interest housing loans to eligible low-income earners.

But even with low-interest loans, the financial burden on employees is significant. With mandatory contributions to BPJS, income tax, and now Tapera, the total deductions can exceed 21.7% of one's salary. This is a heavy load, especially for those earning just the minimum wage.

In the other hand, instead of thinking about the deductions that are significant, we must also consider the long-term benefits. The program is designed to help those who otherwise would never be able to afford a home. Additionally, the pooling of resources allows for a more substantial impact, much like how BPJS has improved access to healthcare for many.

The equity issue is another major concern. Higher-income individuals may not directly benefit from Tapera, yet they contribute the same percentage as lower-income earners. Moreover, transparency in the program's implementation is crucial. The government needs to engage more with the community to ensure the program meets their needs without becoming another financial burden.

These are valid points. The program should indeed ensure fairness and transparency. Engaging with the community and continuously refining the scheme based on feedback is essential. However, it's also worth noting that higher-income earners contributing to Tapera is part of the mutual aid spirit. Those who are better off help those in need, similar to the BPJS model.

To address concerns, transparency and communication about fund management and usage need to be enhanced. Adjusting contribution rates based on income levels could reduce the financial burden on lower-income earners. Continuous monitoring and program adjustments based on community feedback are crucial for the program's success.

Engaging with the community and ensuring the program is implemented fairly and transparently will help build public trust and improve its effectiveness. By refining the scheme and addressing valid criticisms, Tapera can better achieve its goal of making home ownership more accessible for low-income Indonesians.