When Wealth Ceases to Circulate

In a healthy nation, hard work should pave the way for social mobility. Education offers hope, employment provides dignity, and the state ensures that every citizen has a fair opportunity to live decently.

However, when too many people work hard only to survive, while wealth accumulates rapidly in the hands of a small elite, the problem is no longer just poverty. The problem is the very direction of development being distorted.

The Indonesia Economic Inequality 2026 report, published by CELIOS on April 21, 2026, raises serious concerns about this situation. CELIOS states that inequality in Indonesia is worsening and becoming increasingly difficult to justify.

According to the report, the wealth of the 50 richest people is equivalent to the wealth of 55 million Indonesians. At the same time, wage increases for workers are very slow, while wealth accumulation at the top continues to accelerate.

CELIOS also emphasizes that this issue is not merely a market issue, but is related to how the economic and political systems work, with wealth concentrated in extractive sectors, and the same group also having significant influence in government and parliament.

The figures are too large to be ignored. According to the data cited from CELIOS’ findings, the total wealth of the top 50 billionaires is greater than the state budget and is equivalent to about one-fifth of Indonesia’s GDP.

The wealth of this group has also almost doubled in the period 2019-2026, from around Rp 2,008 trillion to Rp 4,651 trillion. Meanwhile, the wealth of the oligarchy increases by about Rp 13 billion per day, while the average wage increase for workers is only about Rp 2 thousand per day.

At this point, economic growth can no longer be automatically interpreted as shared progress. It instead shows a widening gap between those who have assets and those who only have labor.

Furthermore, CELIOS’ findings show that about 58 percent of the wealth of the 50 richest people comes from the extractive sector. This is important.

This means that the accumulation of wealth by the elite in Indonesia is not primarily based on evenly distributed innovation, but is largely related to the control of natural resources, rent-seeking, and access to a highly concentrated economic structure.

Therefore, the inequality we face is not just inequality of outcomes, but also inequality of access to sources of wealth.

When wealth meets political influence, what emerges is not a healthy market, but an oligarchic tendency, with public policy being more responsive to large capital owners than to the majority of citizens.

The impact also does not stop at income statistics. CELIOS describes that workers need a very long time to catch up with the wealth accumulation of the elite; informal workers remain vulnerable without adequate protection; and young people are increasingly finding it difficult to buy a house, own assets, or move up the social ladder.

One of the summaries of the report circulating even states that a worker would need about 280 years to equal the average wealth of the top 50 billionaires.

Inequality, therefore, is not just about who has more today, but about who still has a future tomorrow. When access to education, decent jobs, housing, and productive assets becomes increasingly limited, inequality turns into a crisis of intergenerational hope.

This is where the perspective of Islamic economics offers a more fundamental reading. The main problem is not just the income gap, but the blockage of wealth circulation.

In Islamic tradition, wealth should not be allowed to stop circulating among the rich; this principle is referred to, among other things, in Surah Al-Hasyr, verse 7. At the same time, Surah An-Nisa, verse 58, states that trust must be given to those who deserve it and decisions must be made fairly.

With these two foundations, Islamic economics should not only be built on growth, but must also stand on fair distribution and good governance.

Therefore, when wealth increasingly accumulates in the hands of a small elite and the government fails to maintain fair distribution, what is damaged is not only the economic mechanism, but also public ethics.

Indonesian inequality should not only be understood as a matter of “the rich” and “the poor”, but as a crisis of wealth circulation and a crisis of the ethics of power.

Islamic economics does not oppose the rich. Islam also does not prohibit the accumulation of the fruits of labor, investment, or private ownership.

However, Islam rejects the situation when wealth loses its social function, when work is no longer a reasonable path to prosperity, and when the state fails to be the guardian of distributive justice.

In other words, the problem is not the existence of the rich, but the structure that makes wealth easier to accumulate at the top and more difficult to access from the bottom.

Therefore, the debate about wealth taxes should be taken seriously, not emotionally. CELIOS’ simulations show that a 2 percent wealth tax on the 50 richest people could generate about Rp 93 trillion.

In fact, if applied to all the super-rich with assets above Rp 84 billion, the potential revenue is said to reach Rp 142 trillion.

From the perspective of Islamic economics, such instruments should not be seen as punishment for success, but as an effort to restore the social function of wealth so that it can flow back to the public interest.

As long as it is designed fairly, transparently, and accountably, progressive fiscal policies are in line with the spirit of sharia to prevent excessive concentration and expand benefits.

However, the solution of Islamic economics does not stop at taxes. Zakat, infaq, sadaqah, and productive waqf must also be strengthened, but all of this should not be used as an excuse to allow the structure of inequality to remain intact.

Zakat is a very important moral and social foundation, but it cannot alone cover the damage caused by poor governance.