Pro-Contra Tapera (Public Housing Savings)

Since Tapera (Public Housing Savings) does not only apply to civil servants, there are many pros and cons about it. Some think that this policy is beneficial because we can still withdraw it like a pension like bpjs, but not a few also think that tapera will only make employee dependents heavier, especially for those who are still struggling to meet their daily needs.

For some people, Tapera is considered an effective policy from the government to help workers in Indonesia to immediately own a house with low mortgage costs, which is one indicator of community welfare. In Indonesia  there are still around twelve million families or 15.21 percent who do not own a house while 84.79 percent already own a house in their own name. Although the percentage is smaller than the people who already have a house, of course it must remain a full concern for the government. But unfortunately, the effectiveness is considered irrelevant because even though the proposed mortgage fee is relatively low at 5%, the cost of the house is not proportional to the amount of savings generated. Every year, the price of housing property in Indonesia continues to rise. The price of subsidized houses in Java has even increased in 2024 to 166 million, which was previously only 162 million. If it is connected to tapera, which can only set aside money of at least 150,000 per month by someone who has a salary of 5 million per month, of course this is very irrelevant because it takes at least 50 more years to make money of 160 million. Meanwhile, most Indonesians only work until they are 60 years old. 

Tapera is a required monthly contribution of 3% for independent workers and 2.5% for private workers where the remaining 0.5% is borne by the company. The amount of dues or deductions for tapera is relatively low and the amount is not too burdensome for workers. On the other hand, if examined more deeply, Tapera is not the only salary deduction borne by workers. Other salary deductions such as pension guarantees, old age guarantees, BPJS, and trade union dues, which in total almost reach 10% each month. Of course this is very burdensome financially for workers, especially for those who are still struggling to meet their daily needs, because for them housing is not a top priority. Not only that, the company also objected to the existence of tapera because they had to bear 0.5% for each employee, not to mention they had to prepare other costs such as pension costs and other costs.

Tapera, which is obligatory for workers at least 20 years old with a minimum salary of UMR, can be considered capable of encouraging the public to save because it is mandatory and sustainable. By encouraging people's interest in saving, the goal of community welfare will be easier to achieve. For this reason, the government provides Tapera Savings services which are based on the 1945 Constitution ARTICLE 28 H AYAT (1) Everyone has the right to live in physical and mental prosperity, have a place to live, and get a good and healthy living environment and has the right to receive health services. Although this is based on the law and guaranteed by the government, the Indonesian people already have a trust issue with the government. Corruption cases that often occur in Indonesia and are dominated by government officials make citizens no longer fully trust all government decisions even though there are guaranteed frills and so on. 

In conclusion, the government should provide clear and transparent policies, as well as discussions between the community and the government that can produce policies that can be considered fair by the community without feeling forced and burdened.