In recent months, the conversation around Indonesia’s Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) program has grown louder—and more emotional. On the surface, it’s a noble initiative: ensuring that millions of children receive proper nutrition, supporting long-term human capital, and addressing inequality from the ground up. But behind this warm narrative lies a question that feels uncomfortable, yet necessary:
Who is really paying for it?
Is the government tapping deeper into the pockets of the wealthy? Or are ordinary citizens—quietly and indirectly—shouldering the cost?
Let’s step into the “kitchen” of this massive budget and uncover what’s really cooking.
—
A Program with a Big Heart—and a Bigger Price Tag
The MBG program is ambitious. Feeding millions of students across a vast archipelago is no small feat. Logistics, food procurement, distribution systems, and monitoring—all require serious funding.
We’re not talking about billions. We’re talking about hundreds of trillions of rupiah annually.
And in a country where fiscal space is always a balancing act, funding such a program inevitably leads to trade-offs. The government has limited options:
1. Increase revenue (mainly through taxes)
2. Reallocate existing budgets
3. Take on more debt
4. Or combine all three
But the real tension lies in how that revenue is collected.
—
The Ideal Scenario: Tax the Wealthy More
In theory, the fairest solution is simple: those who earn more should contribute more.
This aligns with the principle of progressive taxation—a system where higher-income individuals pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes. It’s widely seen as a way to reduce inequality while funding social programs like MBG.
Indonesia has already taken steps in this direction. There have been adjustments in income tax brackets, with higher rates applied to top earners. On paper, this sounds promising.
But reality is rarely that clean.
—
The Complication: Taxing the Wealthy Isn’t Always Straightforward
High-income individuals often have access to financial tools and strategies that allow them to optimize—or minimize—their tax burden. This isn’t always illegal, but it does make enforcement more complex.
From offshore accounts to corporate structuring, wealth can be shielded, moved, or reclassified. This creates a gap between intended tax policy and actual tax collection.
So while policies may target the wealthy, the real question becomes:
How much of that planned revenue actually materializes?
If the gap is large, the government must look elsewhere.
—
The Silent Contributor: Everyday Citizens
This is where things get more sensitive.
When direct taxation on the wealthy doesn’t fully meet expectations, governments often rely on indirect taxes—like Value Added Tax (VAT), known locally as PPN.
Unlike income tax, VAT is applied to goods and services. This means everyone pays it, regardless of income level.
And here’s the catch:
A billionaire and a street vendor both pay VAT when buying basic goods
But the vendor spends a larger portion of their income on consumption
In effect, indirect taxes tend to hit lower-income groups harder, proportionally speaking.
So when VAT rates increase—even slightly—it can ripple through the economy:
Food prices go up
Transportation costs rise
Daily living becomes more expensive
And suddenly, the question becomes unavoidable:
Is the public indirectly funding MBG through higher living costs?
—
Budget Reallocation: Robbing Peter to Feed Paul?
Another layer of the MBG funding strategy involves shifting existing budgets.
This means funds that might have gone to infrastructure, subsidies, or other public services could be redirected to support the program.
While this isn’t inherently bad—it’s often necessary—it does come with consequences:
Reduced funding in other sectors
Delayed projects
Potential impact on economic growth
In simple terms, the government might not be taking more money from citizens—but it is changing how their money is used.
—
The Political Reality: Balancing Perception and Policy
Let’s be honest—tax policy is not just economic. It’s deeply political.
Raising taxes on the wealthy sounds popular, but it can face resistance from powerful groups. On the other hand, increasing VAT is often more subtle. It spreads the burden across millions of people, making it less visible—even if the impact is widespread.
This creates a delicate balancing act:
Appear fair and pro-people
Maintain investor confidence
Ensure sufficient revenue
And sometimes, the result is a compromise that satisfies no one completely.
—
So, Who Really Pays?
The honest answer is: everyone does—but not equally.
The wealthy may contribute more in absolute terms, especially if progressive taxes are enforced effectively
But ordinary citizens often feel the impact more directly, through rising prices and reduced purchasing power
It’s not always a clear case of “the rich vs the poor.” Instead, it’s a layered system where the burden is shared—but unevenly distributed.
—
The Human Side of the Equation
Beyond numbers and policies, there’s a deeper question:
Is the outcome worth it?
If MBG succeeds—if it truly improves child nutrition, boosts educational outcomes, and breaks cycles of poverty—then the investment could pay off in ways that go far beyond economics.
Healthier children today mean:
A more productive workforce tomorrow
Lower healthcare costs in the future
Stronger national competitiveness
But if the program is mismanaged—if funds leak, logistics fail, or benefits don’t reach those who need them most—then the burden, no matter who carries it, becomes harder to justify.
—
Transparency: The Missing Ingredient
What people really want isn’t just fairness—it’s clarity.
Where exactly is the money coming from?
How is it being spent?
Who is benefiting the most?
Without transparency, even the best policies can feel suspicious.
And in the case of MBG, transparency isn’t just a technical requirement—it’s a moral one.
—
Closing Thoughts: A Shared Responsibility, A Shared Risk
The MBG program represents something bigger than a budget line. It’s a statement about what a nation values.
Feeding its children is, without question, a worthy goal.
But how that goal is funded—and who bears the cost—matters just as much.
Because in the end, a policy is not judged only by its intentions, but by its impact.
And the real test of MBG will not be in headlines or speeches, but in the quiet, everyday lives of the people it touches:
The child who finally gets a nutritious meal
The parent who struggles with rising costs
The taxpayer who wonders where their money goes
So, is the wealthy being taxed more?
Or are ordinary citizens quietly footing the bill?
Perhaps the most honest answer is this:
We’re all in this together—but some feel it more than others.