Alternative Policy on Progressive Tax Rate on Idle Land in the Special Capital Territory of Jakarta

Rizki Nanda Apriani(1*), Inayati Inayati(2),

(1) Universitas Indonesia
(2) Universitas Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author


The objective of this study is to analyze the alternative progressive tax rates on idle land in DKI Jakarta. Researchers used qualitative method. Based on the results of the analysis through data collection carried out using literature studies and in-depth interviews with informants, it can be concluded that with this progressive tax rate policy alternative it is believed that it can suppress effectively and precisely the concentration pattern of land ownership and control as well as speculative behavior towards land and legal entities that hoard the land. These laws and government regulations were inadequate to be applicable to non-agricultural lands or lands with ownership, or use rights. It is due to  both of them have not regulated the extent of non-agricultural land, as well as the area of land ownership rights, building use rights, and use rights either for individual or legal entities. The imposition of a progressive tax rate by looking at the length of ownership adopted by South Korean country was also considered capable of being a pretty good way dealing with this idle land problem. The results of study related to the imposition of a progressive tax rate on idle land using the excess scheme or additional collection on the building land tax has been previously imposed.


Idle Land, Progressive Tax, Property Tax

Full Text:



American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, (2001). Guiding Principles of Good Tax Policy: A Framework for Evaluating Tax Proposals. New York : American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Inc

Ardiwijaya V.S., Sumardi T,P., Suganda E., Temenggung Y,A. (2015). Rejuvenating idle land to sustainable urban form: case study of Bandung metropolitan area, Indonesia. Procedia Enviromental Sciences. 28, 176-184

Ariany, N. (2010). Analisis Progresivitas Pajak Bumi dan Bangunan (PBB) Bagi Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi di Jakarta Selatan Serta Hubungannya Dengan Ketidakmampuan Membayar PBB. Universitas Indonesia. Depok.

Banzhaf H S., Lavery Nathan. (2010). Can the land tax help curb urban sprawl? Evidence from growth patterns in Pennsylvania. Journal of Urban Economics. 67, 169-179.

Bird, Richard M. dan Enid Slack. 2012. Land and property Taxation: A review.

Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department House of Representatives. Idle Land Tax: Implementation Issues and Challenges CPBRD Policy Brief.

Coulson Edward, N., Li Herman. (2010). The effect of risk on the effect of a land tax: A simulation. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 40, 530-537

Creswell, J. (2013). Research Design (Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan Mixed). Yogyakarta: Pusaka Pelajar.

Darwin, (2013), Pajak Bumi dan Bangunan Dalam Tataran Praktis Edisi 2, Jakarta, Penerbit Wacana Media.

Diana Sari. (2013). Konsep Dasar Perpajakan. Refika Aditama. Bandung.

Dunn, W, N. (2003). Pengantar Analisis Kebijakan Publik: Public Policy Analysis. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press

Emzir. (2012). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif: Analisis Data. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Fisher, M. Ernest. (1958). Economic Aspect of Urban Land Use Patterns. The Journal of Industrial Economics, June, Vol. 6, S. 198-208.

Governor Regulation No. 41 of 2019 concerning Imposition of Rural and Urban Property Taxes to Individual Taxpayers on Building Tax Objects in the Form of Houses for the 2019 Fiscal Year

Government Regulation Number 11 of 2010 concerning Control and utilization of idle land.

Islamy, M, I. (2009). Perumusan Kebijaksanaan Negara. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara

Kalkuhl M., Milan F. B., Schwerhoff G., Jakob M., Hahnen M., Creutzig F. (2018). Can land taxes foster sustainable development? An assessment of fiscal, distributional and implementation issues. Land Use Policy. 78, 338-352.

Lasmana, E. (1992). Sistem Perpajakan di Indonesia, Jakarta: Prima Kampus Grafika.

Law Number 28 of 2007 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 6 of 1983 concerning KUP.

Lestari, D. (2015, November 8). Dipetik February 13, 2017, dari Kenapa Anda Sulit Beli Rumah Sebelum Usia 30? Ini Alasannya Beberapa faktor berikut harus Anda perhatikan:

Montefrio M., Dressler W. (2016). The Green Economy and Constructions of the "Idle" and "Unproductive" Uplands in the Philippines. World Development. Vol .79, 114-126.

Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of Social Research, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Nurmantu, S. (2003). Dasar-Dasar Perpajakan. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.

Nurmantu, S. (2005). Pengantar Perpajakan Edisi 3. Jakarta: Granit

O'Sullivan, A. T. (1995). Property Taxes and Tax Revolts: The Legacy of Proposition 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Pantya J., Kovacs J., Kogler C., Kirchler E. (2016). Work performance and tax compliance in flat and proggresive tax system. Journal of Economic Psychology. 56, 262-273.

Pitoko, R. A. (2016, August 25). (H. Alexander, Penyunt.) Dipetik February 1, 2017, dari Catatan Hapernas 2016, 82,8 Persen Kepemilikan Rumah Bukan Indikator Kesuksesan:

Ramadhan, B. (2019, April 26). Dipetik Februari 1, 2017, dari Nasional Republika, Aturan PBB Gratis Ada Syaratnya:

Sidik. (2000). Model Penilaian Properti Berbagai Penggunaan Tanah di Indonesia. Jakarta: Yayasan Bina Ummat Sejahtera.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Program Pascasarjana Magister Administrasi Publik, Universitas Medan Area

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License