Potential Wealth Tax on Indonesia's Super Rich Could Reach Rp142 Trillion

Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia - Countries are built through taxes paid by their citizens. But did you know that the crazy rich or super wealthy in Indonesia have the potential to generate state revenue in the form of taxes worth hundreds of trillions of rupiah.

Research by the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS) in its report on Indonesia’s Economic Inequality 2026 reveals that the potential state revenue is Rp142 trillion if all super rich individuals with assets above Rp84 billion in Indonesia are subject to a wealth tax.

“Wealth tax on 50 trillionaires worth Rp93 trillion represents the potential state revenue from a 2 percent tax on the wealth of Indonesia’s 50 richest people,” CELIOS stated, as quoted on Tuesday (28/4/2026).

CELIOS notes that during the 2019-2025 period, the wealth of Indonesia’s 50 richest people nearly doubled, from around Rp2,508 trillion to Rp4,651 trillion in 2026. This amount is equivalent to one-fifth of Indonesia’s GDP.

This increase in wealth is considered alarming because it highlights very clear inequality on one side.

“The wealth of Indonesia’s 50 richest people is equivalent to one-fifth of Indonesia’s GDP,” CELIOS wrote.

CELIOS observes wealth inequality between Indonesia’s crazy rich and the general population. Additionally, inequality is also evident in the benefits and ‘harms’ received by ordinary citizens.

According to CELIOS records, the median wealth of 50 super rich individuals in Indonesia in 2026 reaches Rp52.3 billion, while the median wealth of the population is only Rp84.35 million.

Looking ahead, the gap is expected to widen further, with super rich median wealth projected to surge 106% to Rp107.7 trillion by 2050. In contrast, median population wealth will only rise 20% to Rp101 million.

“The economy based on the exploitation of natural resources generates huge profits for a handful of super rich groups. Meanwhile, the additional costs due to environmental damage are borne by society,” it emphasised.

Therefore, CELIOS recommends that the government impose a wealth tax. The concept of wealth tax has long been an alternative discourse as a form of progressive annual levy based on an individual’s total assets minus their liabilities.

Various countries have implemented wealth taxes, such as Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia, and even Norway, which still has a wealth tax system to this day. A more aggressive wealth tax targeting ultra-wealthy individuals can effectively complement the income tax system.

“Wealth tax is categorised as a progressive tax because the burden is relatively greater on the rich group compared to regressive taxes that burden the poor.”

The wealth tax is supported by the public, according to CELIOS. CELIOS’s survey results on public perceptions of wealth tax also received high support. The majority of the public agrees if wealth tax is implemented in Indonesia.

The majority of respondents also believe that wealth tax can reduce economic inequality between social classes.

The most concrete impact is an increase in state tax revenue, which can thicken the state budget to act as a buffer against shocks, as is happening now, amid economic uncertainty from external factors.

“Tax revenue will increase significantly, meaning the government can raise spending budgets for social protection functions without raising existing tax rates. In times of crisis, wealth tax can also serve as a fiscal shock absorber,” CELIOS wrote.

The potential for wealth tax can be more optimal with a threshold or minimum wealth tax imposition limit of Rp84 billion. With a progressive rate of 1-2%, the potential wealth tax could reach Rp142.2 trillion per year. This amount is nearly 60% of the total personal income tax paid by all workers in Indonesia.

For information, in the first quarter of 2026, tax revenue consisted of Corporate Income Tax (PPh) of Rp43.3 trillion. Personal Income Tax and PPh 21 was recorded at Rp61.3 trillion, up 15.8%. Meanwhile, final PPh 22 and PPh 26 was Rp76.7 trillion, up 5.1%.

“Amid widening inequality, the state actually has room to extract greater contributions from the top group, not from ordinary people who are already burdened,” CELIOS emphasised.