Public Perceptions of Income Tax Article 21 Exemption in Indonesia: A Netnographic Study of TikTok Discourse
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Income Tax Article 21 is one of Indonesia’s most visible fiscal instruments because it is deducted directly from workers’ employment income. Although exemption or government-borne PPh 21 has been used as a stimulus to protect disposable income, its legitimacy depends on how society interprets its fairness, effectiveness, and administrative accessibility. This study examines public perceptions of PPh 21 exemption through a qualitative netnographic analysis of TikTok discourse. Data were collected from the comment section of one @metropolitan.id video discussing the policy, which generated 6.1 million views, 126,000 likes, and 8,553 comments. After screening, 8,310 comments were coded using thematic analysis within an interpretive netnographic framework. The findings reveal four major themes. First, the policy was evaluated through its direct effect on take-home pay, with salary and PPh-related comments dominating the discussion. Second, users connected the policy to structural burdens such as BPJS contributions and formal employment registration. Third, public debate centered on distributive justice, especially the perceived exclusion of informal and unstable workers. Fourth, support for the policy was conditional and often accompanied by aspirations for more concrete subsidies, such as electricity discounts. The study contributes to fiscal policy and public-sector accounting literature by showing that digital public discourse offers a naturalistic source of evidence for understanding policy legitimacy, trust, and citizen evaluation in the digital governance era.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
[1] A. J. Makin and A. Layton, “The global fiscal response to COVID-19: Risks and repercussions,” Econ. Anal. Policy, vol. 69, pp. 340–349, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2020.12.016.
[2] M. Faria-e-Castro, “Fiscal policy during a pandemic,” J. Econ. Dyn. Control, vol. 125, p. 104088, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jedc.2021.104088.
[3] P. Deb, D. Furceri, J. D. Ostry, and N. Tawk, “The economic effects of COVID-19 containment measures,” Open Economies Review, vol. 33, pp. 1–32, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11079-021-09638-2.
[4] T. Evi and I. S. Pramesworo, “Providing Income Tax Article 21 tax incentives during the COVID-19 pandemic for the stability of economic growth in Indonesia,” Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 106–119, 2021, doi: 10.47191/jefms/v4-i3-02.
[5] P. B. Saptono and I. Khozen, “Income tax policy amidst COVID-19 pandemic: Quo vadis Indonesia?,” AKRUAL: Jurnal Akuntansi, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 17–29, 2022, doi: 10.26740/jaj.v14n1.p17-29.
[6] L. Batrancea et al., “Trust and power as determinants of tax compliance across 44 nations,” J. Econ. Psychol., vol. 74, p. 102191, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2019.102191.
[7] T. Appiah, D. Domeher, and J. A. Agana, “Tax knowledge, trust in government, and voluntary tax compliance: Insights from an emerging economy,” Sage Open, vol. 14, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.1177/21582440241234757.
[8] H. B. Taing and Y. Chang, “Determinants of tax compliance intention: Focus on the theory of planned behavior,” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 62–73, 2021, doi: 10.1080/01900692.2020.1728313.
[9] F. Inasius, G. Darijanto, E. Gani, and G. Soepriyanto, “Tax compliance after the implementation of tax amnesty in Indonesia,” Sage Open, vol. 10, no. 4, 2020, doi: 10.1177/2158244020968793.
[10] M. Hartner, S. Rechberger, E. Kirchler, and A. Schabmann, “Tax fairness: Conceptual foundations and empirical measurement,” Journal of Business Ethics, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-4001-4.
[11] S. Arshad and S. Khurram, “Can government’s presence on social media stimulate citizens’ online political participation? Investigating the influence of transparency, trust, and responsiveness,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 37, no. 3, p. 101486, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101486.
[12] M. Mansoor, “Citizens’ trust in government as a function of good governance and government agency’s provision of quality information on social media during COVID-19,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 38, no. 4, p. 101597, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101597.
[13] G. A. Porumbescu, “Linking public sector social media and e-government website use to trust in government,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 291–304, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.006.
[14] S. Zhai, Y. J. Li, and M. Chi, “The impact of government social media information quality on public panic during the infodemic,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, p. 908213, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.908213.
[15] D. Onu and L. Oats, “Tax talk: An exploration of online discussions among taxpayers,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 149, no. 4, pp. 931–944, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3032-y.
[16] C. J. Peterson, “Social media and public perception as core aspect of public health: The cautionary case of @realDonaldTrump and COVID-19,” PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 5, p. e0251179, 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251179.
[17] L. Costello, M.-L. McDermott, and R. Wallace, “Netnography: Range of practices, misperceptions, and missed opportunities,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 16, pp. 1–12, 2017, doi: 10.1177/1609406917700647.
[18] R. V Kozinets and U. Gretzel, “Netnography evolved: New contexts, scope, procedures and sensibilities,” Ann. Tour. Res., vol. 104, p. 103693, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2023.103693.
[19] M. Faisol and N. Norsain, “Netnografi: Perspektif netizen terhadap kenaikan tarif PPN 11%,” Jurnal Akademi Akuntansi, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 167–182, 2023, doi: 10.22219/jaa.v6i2.24536.
[20] L. M. Batrancea et al., “A self-employed taxpayer experimental study on trust, power, and tax compliance in eleven countries,” Financial Innovation, vol. 8, p. 96, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40854-022-00404-y.
[21] M. Alessandro, B. C. Lagomarsino, C. Scartascini, and J. Torrealday, “Transparency and trust in government: Evidence from a survey experiment,” World Dev., vol. 138, p. 105223, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105223.
[22] C. L. Snelson, “Qualitative and mixed methods social media research: A review of the literature,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 15, pp. 1–15, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1609406915624574.
[23] C. Fiesler and N. Proferes, “‘Participant’ perceptions of Twitter research ethics,” Soc. Media Soc., vol. 4, no. 1, 2018, doi: 10.1177/2056305118763366.
[24] M. L. Williams, P. Burnap, and L. Sloan, “Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research,” Sociology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1149–1168, 2017, doi: 10.1177/0038038517708140.
[25] L. S. Nowell, J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules, “Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2017, doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847.
[26] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis,” Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 589–597, 2019, doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806.
[27] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in reflexive thematic analysis?,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 328–352, 2021, doi: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.