Unravelling the Polemic of Tax on JHT Disbursement

Why is the Jaminan Hari Tua (JHT) still subject to tax when it is disbursed? Was not the salary that funded the contributions already subject to Income Tax?

The question sounds simple, but it is enough to spark debate. On social media, the answers that emerge often share the same tone: the state is taxing workers’ income twice. This perception has spread rapidly because it stems from seemingly reasonable logic. However, taxation matters cannot always be explained by everyday logic alone. There is a legal construction that determines when income becomes a tax object and when it does not.

Recently, the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP) affirmed that the disbursement of JHT does not constitute double taxation. This explanation simultaneously corrected the assumption developing in the community. Under the prevailing mechanism, JHT contributions are not taxed when deducted from income because they serve as a deduction in the calculation of Article 21 Income Tax. Tax is only imposed when the JHT benefit is received in accordance with applicable provisions. Thus, the object and timing of the tax imposition are different.

So, why does the perception of being ‘taxed twice’ persist?

The answer may not solely be because the public does not understand the rules, but because the law has not fully succeeded in explaining itself to the public. This is where Scott J. Shapiro’s legal theory becomes relevant.

In his book Legality, Shapiro introduces the Planning Theory of Law, the idea that law is essentially a system of social planning. Law does not exist merely to command or prohibit, but to create coordination. When society faces complex problems, the law provides a shared plan so that everyone has the same footing in acting.

This idea feels close to the JHT issue. The taxation system cannot function if everyone has their own interpretation of when income is taxed. Some might assume tax is settled when the salary is received. Others might argue tax is only properly imposed when the benefit is actually enjoyed. Without definite rules, what emerges is not justice, but uncertainty.

Therefore, the state establishes a clear design. JHT contributions are excluded from the tax object at the time of payment, while the benefits are subject to Income Tax when disbursed. From Shapiro’s perspective, this rule is part of a shared plan that must be obeyed for the system to run consistently.

However, legal certainty does not mean the law cannot change. On the contrary, a good legal system must be able to adapt to societal changes.

This is where the discussion regarding the tax imposition threshold on JHT becomes important. The government has opened the possibility of evaluating the provisions concerning the JHT benefit threshold that receives a 0 percent final Income Tax rate. The policy, born through Government Regulation Number 68 of 2009, was formulated when Indonesia’s economic conditions were vastly different from today.

Over more than fifteen years, inflation has continued, minimum wages have increased, and the cost of living has changed. The value of Rp50 million in 2009 certainly does not have the same purchasing power in 2026. Therefore, a review of this threshold is a reasonable discussion.

From Shapiro’s perspective, such an evaluation is not a sign of legal inconsistency. On the contrary, legal planning must be updated when the underlying conditions change. A good plan is not one maintained without correction, but one that remains capable of answering society’s problems.

Another interesting point is the fact that public perception differs from empirical conditions. The government has stated that approximately 95 percent of JHT claims are below Rp50 million, thus subject to a 0 percent final Income Tax rate. This means the majority of workers actually do not pay tax when disbursing their JHT.

This data shows that the main issue is not just the substance of the rule, but policy communication. Information circulating often stops at the sentence ‘JHT is taxed’, without accompanying explanations regarding the mechanism, the nominal threshold, or the legal reasoning. As a result, the public sphere is filled with incomplete conclusions.

Yet, in a modern rule-of-law state, communication is an inseparable part of regulation. A good rule must be understandable, not just applicable. When the public understands the reasoning behind a policy, trust in state institutions will grow stronger. Conversely, if explanations come late, perception will shape opinion first.

In the field of taxation, this condition has broader consequences. Indonesia’s taxation system is built on the principle of self-assessment, which entrusts taxpayers to calculate, pay, and report their own tax obligations. This trust can only grow if the public believes that rules are made rationally, applied consistently, and explained openly.

Therefore, the JHT polemic should serve as an important lesson. The government needs to continuously strengthen its public communication regarding tax policies, while periodic evaluations of provisions that no longer reflect economic developments must also be carried out. Legal certainty is not sufficiently realised only through neatly written regulations, but also through the state’s ability to explain the logic behind every policy.

Ultimately, the debate over JHT tax is not solely about the existence or absence of double taxation. The more fundamental issue is how to build a bridge between legal norms and public understanding.

Scott J. Shapiro reminds us that law is a shared plan. A plan will only succeed if it is understood by all parties executing it. Therefore, building a fair taxation system is not just a matter of drafting rules, but also a matter of building a shared understanding.