A splendid plan to explore the lunar highlands of Fra Mauro, named after an Italian cartographer, suddenly had to crash. On April 14 early in the morning, at 02.59 to be precise, the Apollo 13 oxygen tank exploded in space and destroyed half of the fuselage. Jim and Swigert then reported the incident to NASA headquarters and the Apollo 13 command in Texas. They said that the condition of the oxygen supply in the cabin had drastically reduced, the plane lost power, the carbon dioxide regulator was damaged, and most of the tools on the plane did not work. If we were in the astronaut’s position, how would the response be?
Panic. Of course that’s what happened. For a few moments, everyone was confused, silent, and desperate to face this condition. Fear has seized everyone. Not only the astronauts, but also the command center on earth. But in the midst of this chaotic condition, there was one simple question that came from the mouth of Gene Kranz, a NASA Flight Director, which became the turning point for this situation.
The question is: “What do you have on the plane that still works?”
This simple question has opened my eyes. If previously everyone was more focused on problems, then Gene Kranz’s question earlier was more focused on finding solutions. This has given birth to new ideas and hopes. The astronauts began to realize that the lunar module, a part of the aircraft intended for landing on the moon, was still functioning properly. Then a brilliant idea arose to utilize the module as a vehicle to return to earth.
After calculating the best trajectory (trajectory) to earth, they concluded that if they were efficient enough to use thrust to steer the direction of the module, then by using the force of gravity this effort could bring the astronauts home. The problem of depleted oxygen was successfully tricked by cannibalizing some of the aircraft’s components to be used as a carbon dioxide filter and maintaining an adequate supply of oxygen during the trip. So at 12 noon, April 17, 1970, the Apollo 13 lunar module successfully entered the Earth’s atmosphere and successfully landed the three astronauts in the Pacific Ocean safely.
There is a lesson to be learned from this true story, namely when complicated problems strike, then focus on solutions. Don’t get lost in existing problems, but focus on something we know and have, then surely a way out will come your way. We can apply the same thing to overcome this country’s classic problem, which is related to the tax ratio
Indonesia has experienced golden times when the price of oil was on the throne, otherwise known as the Oil Bonanza or Oil Boom. Indonesia as one of the oil-producing countries, suddenly experienced a surge in international demand or experienced a very high increase in the selling price of petroleum. The first Bonanza occurred during the Arab-Israeli war in 1974, while the second occurred in 1970-1980 during the Iranian revolution. At that time revenue from the oil sector became a support for state revenues.
Unfortunately, the oil bonanza did not last long. In 1981-1982 the price of oil began to decline and in the following years the price fluctuated more and more erratically. Since 1983, the Indonesian economy has entered a post-oil boom period. It was then that the Indonesian government began to rely on taxes as a source of development financing. However, when taxes support revenue, Indonesia is faced with the problem of a low tax ratio. In simple terms, the tax ratio is a comparison between collective tax revenues at one time and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the same time. This GDP is the total value of goods and services of a country minus the value of goods and services used in production. This tax ratio is one of the benchmarks for a country’s tax performance.
Based on the 2021 Revenue Statistics in Asia and the Pacific report published by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Indonesia’s tax ratio is recorded at only 11.6%. This figure places our country in the third lowest position out of 24 countries in Asia Pacific, or only higher than Laos and Bhutan. When compared to the average tax ratio of 24 countries surveyed, Indonesia’s tax ratio is still far below the average of 21%. Even worse, when compared to the average tax ratio of 30 African countries, on average African countries were able to record a better figure, namely 16.6%.
There are at least two factors contributing to the low tax ratio, namely the policy gap and the compliance gap. Policy gaps arise due to tax expenditure or reduced tax revenue due to special provisions that are different from the general tax system, such as tax incentives. This was especially felt when the Covid-19 pandemic hit, at that time the government was showered with various tax incentives so that the wheels of the economy were maintained. Meanwhile, the compliance gap occurs due to the limited ability of the government to collect taxes and supervisory capacity. This is due to administrative system factors that apply to the tax authority.