Menteri Keuangan Sri Mulyani Indrawati akan mengevaluasi insentif pajak penghasilan (PPh) final sebesar 0,5% untuk Usaha Mikro, Kecil, dan Menengah (UMKM). Evaluasi ini dilakukan untuk menentukan insentif tarif pajak tersebut akan diperpanjang atau tidak. Pasalnya, kebijakan ini akan berakhir pada tahun ini.
Selama ini, insentif tersebut berlaku dalam bentuk tarif PPh sangat rendah bagi UMKM yang omzetnya dalam setahun tidak melebihi Rp 4,8 miliar. Namun menurut Sri Mulyani, pemberian insentif tarif PPh berdasarkan nilai omzet tidak 100% adil bagi UMKM karena omzet tidak mencerminkan kesehatan suatu usaha.
Sebab bisa saja suatu UMKM memiliki omzet di atas Rp 500 juta namun biaya operasinya sangat besar dan bahkan merugi. Alhasil UMKM tersebut tetap harus membayar pajak.
Lantaran UMKM tidak memiliki pembukuan usaha yang cukup baik, maka Pemerintah mendorong agar UMKM tetap membayar pajak meski lebih kecil.
Selama ini, insentif tersebut berlaku dalam bentuk tarif PPh sangat rendah bagi UMKM yang omzetnya dalam setahun tidak melebihi Rp 4,8 miliar. Namun menurut Sri Mulyani, pemberian insentif tarif PPh berdasarkan nilai omzet tidak 100% adil bagi UMKM karena omzet tidak mencerminkan kesehatan suatu usaha.
Sebab bisa saja suatu UMKM memiliki omzet di atas Rp 500 juta namun biaya operasinya sangat besar dan bahkan merugi. Alhasil UMKM tersebut tetap harus membayar pajak.
Lantaran UMKM tidak memiliki pembukuan usaha yang cukup baik, maka Pemerintah mendorong agar UMKM tetap membayar pajak meski lebih kecil.
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00The Ministry of Finance evaluated the implementation of incentive policies for the micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
00:16In the fiscal policy body, the Ministry of Finance assessed that the PPH incentive for SMEs has had a positive impact on the SMEs sector in the country.
00:30The Ministry of Finance stated that it is still evaluating the PPH incentive policy for small and medium-sized enterprises as large as 0.5%.
00:41However, the policy will end at the end of 2024.
00:47The head of the Ministry of Finance's fiscal policy body, Febrio Kacaribu, said that in the extension of the fiscal incentive policy for SMEs, the party is still waiting for instructions from the Minister of Finance, Sri Mulyani.
01:00Febrio suggested that the tax incentive policy for SMEs will also be evaluated like other policies from the Ministry of Finance.
01:10There is a conclusion that the final PPH incentive policy of 0.5% for SMEs is stipulated in Government Rule No. 23 of 2018
01:20on the PPH on the income from the business that is received or paid by the taxpayer who has a certain gross income.
01:29In the regulation, it is also stated that the government applies the final PPH tariff of 0.5% only for SMEs with an income of no more than Rp 4.8 billion in a year.
01:42Febrio said that the PPH incentive for SMEs has had a positive impact on the SMEs sector.
01:49The implementation of the incentive also reflects the government's side of the SMEs.
01:57The parties are also in favor of the Tax Regulation Harmonization Act, which stipulates that the income is not taxed for SMEs with an income of up to Rp 500 million.
02:09The government's side of the SMEs is also in favor of the tax budget enjoyed by the SMEs.
02:17Febrio said that in the national tax budget, an average of Rp 60-70 trillion in a year can be directly enjoyed by the SMEs sector.
02:29Various sources, IDX channel.
02:37Okay, Mr. Mirso, to discuss our interesting topic this time, related to the potential benefits of the extension of the PPH incentive for SMEs.
02:44We have been connected through Zoom with Mr. Ajip Hamdani, economic policy analyst from the Association of Indonesian Entrepreneurs.
02:51Good morning, Mr. Ajip.
02:53Good morning, Mr. Prahas.
02:54Yes, greetings, sir.
02:55Always healthy.
02:56Always healthy.
02:57Okay, once again, we are talking about the SMEs sector as a supporter of the National Economy Review.
03:03First of all, from the eyes of Mr. Ajip Hamdani, related to the government policy for the SMEs sector.
03:09How big is his side? Please.
03:13Like this, Mr. Prahas, if we look at the SMEs, and we have to refer to Law No. 20 of 2008,
03:19that is, the SMEs in the entire sector, all sectors, as long as their turnover is below Rp. 50 billion,
03:25or their assets or net worth is below Rp. 10 billion, then they are in the category of SMEs.
03:30If we look at the revenue here, then the contribution to the GDP is actually extraordinary, Mr. Prahas.
03:36The data is not even less than 60% of Indonesia's GDP is financed by the SMEs.
03:41And the SMEs also support more than 64 million people.
03:48This means that the SMEs sector makes a significant contribution,
03:52making a very strong contribution to our GDP and ultimately in the context of economic growth.
03:57So then the SMEs need to get more attention from the government,
04:01both from regulatory incentives, fiscal incentives, and monetary incentives, to continue to grow well.
04:07And if we look at it, Mr. Prahas, that indeed the SMEs sector is a significant supporter of our economy during the pandemic.
04:14We see that even during the pandemic and even a little bit during the recession,
04:19our economic growth was constructed quite deeply.
04:21But if we look at it later, that Indonesia's economy can rebound the fastest,
04:26and even the second largest in the world after China, one of the factors is because our SMEs are very strong.
04:32So our hope, Mr. Prahas, is how the government in the future remains pro with growth and pro with equality,
04:38and the focus is on these SMEs.
04:40So how can the SMEs continue to grow and make a maximum contribution?
04:43It requires the intervention of the government's regulations.
04:46Okay, but how do you realize it?
04:48Can it really lift the class of our SMEs?
04:53Okay, if we look at the data, for example, from Mr. Fabrio Kacaridu,
04:58from the head of the BKF, the Ministry of Fiscal Affairs,
05:00it states that at least from around 60 to 70 trillion,
05:04funds are not directly from fiscal incentives.
05:07Okay.
05:08What I mean is this, Mr. Prahas.
05:10Funds are not directly from fiscal incentives. What does it mean?
05:12Actually, if the SMEs apply the PASAL 17 in the PPH Law,
05:18or they pay taxes as normal,
05:21then the potential of the state government is more than 60 to 70 trillion additional.
05:26But because of the PP number 23 in 2018,
05:30then the SMEs get fiscal incentives,
05:34so they pay lower taxes.
05:37Something like that.
05:38And it's not less than 60 to 70 trillion every year.
05:41Okay.
05:42That's called tax expenditure.
05:44But then, what if we compare it to the total tax expenditure allocated by the government?
05:51Mr. Prahas, actually, the tax expenditure in Indonesia is not less than 2 to 2.5% of our total GDP.
05:58It means that in 2024,
06:00our tax expenditure potential is not less than 400 trillion, Mr. Prahas.
06:04It means that if we look at it later,
06:06that the 60 to 70 trillion tax expenditure for SMEs
06:11is actually a relatively small number compared to the total tax expenditure overall.
06:19It means, Mr. Prahas,
06:20the policy to provide fiscal incentives to the SMEs sector
06:25is very worthy to be continued
06:27with the consideration that the SMEs contribute the maximum
06:31and significant contribution to our GDP.
06:33But actually, the ratio of the tax expenditure used by the SMEs sector
06:37is not that big compared to other sectors.
06:40Something like that, Mr. Prahas.
06:41What's interesting is that the government is also focusing on discussing again
06:45the final PPH policy of the SMEs, 0.5%,
06:48as it is being studied again.
06:49What do you think?
06:50Is it worth prolonging or what?
06:53Actually, it started from the PPH No. 23 in 2018,
06:58which actually made three clusters,
07:00namely the three clusters of individuals,
07:02the PT cluster, and the CV cluster.
07:05After this, it's actually the individuals, Mr. Prahas,
07:08because the individuals only have a maximum of 7 years.
07:11It means that by the end of 2024, it will be completed.
07:13When the government does not make a new regulation
07:17on the PPH No. 23 in 2018,
07:19then the benefits of individuals on the SMEs tax will be automatically lost.
07:25In 2025, they will have to return to the normal tax calculation.
07:30That's what I think.
07:31Actually, for PT or CV,
07:35those who have used the benefits since 2020,
07:38they have also run out of use.
07:40That's why they usually,
07:42what they can do is,
07:45if they want to get this benefit, they replace it with PT.
07:48That's what they usually do.
07:50So, the point is,
07:52the problem of the government's narrative
07:54whether to change the regulation or not,
07:56actually, it's been a long time.
08:00PT who use it in 2020,
08:02then automatically in 2023, they're done.
08:04In 2024, they have to use the normal tax calculation,
08:07according to the body tax calculation.
08:09So, it depends on how, in a nutshell,
08:12the tax authorities investigate on the ground.
08:14The important thing is that they do not violate the rules.
08:16In the context of PT, they can replace it.
08:19The problem is,
08:20those who take advantage of the tax incentives are individuals.
08:24Individuals cannot be replaced.
08:26Then, the public wants,
08:30when the tax incentive is 0.5% above the individual,
08:35then a new regulation is needed.
08:38It means that the PP number 23 in 2018 must be revised.
08:42So that in 2025, individuals can use it again.
08:45Because if PT,
08:46since yesterday, several times,
08:48the period of activity is over.
08:50Including CV. CV is only 4 years.
08:52I think the condition is like that.
08:54But, how effective is the implementation of the final PPV?
08:580.5%.
09:00Is it really a game changer?
09:03Actually, in the context of CV or PT,
09:05it's actually a simple thing.
09:07Once the PT has been used for 3 years,
09:09they replace the PT,
09:11they can get more benefits.
09:13It's like that.
09:14PP number 23 in 2019,
09:16the tax is 0.5%.
09:18The problem is with individuals.
09:20Individuals cannot use this facility
09:22when the PP number 23 is not changed.
09:25When the PP is not changed,
09:26the individual automatically runs out.
09:27But actually,
09:29we have to educate the general public,
09:32to taxpayers,
09:33that actually,
09:34PP 0.5 can be beneficial,
09:37but on the other hand,
09:39it's not necessarily beneficial.
09:40As an illustration,
09:42if we pay the tax,
09:43let's say 22%,
09:45the body tax,
09:46but actually,
09:47we also need to inform the general public,
09:49that when the turnover is below 4.8%,
09:52actually the tax is not 22%,
09:54but 50% x 22%,
09:57which means it's only 11%.
09:59Now, we compare it with 0.5%.
10:020.5% will be beneficial for the people
10:05when they have a margin for business.
10:10There will be a lot of business.
10:12With such a wide UMKM.
10:14If the net margin is up to 4%,
10:19then it's really beneficial to use 0.5%.
10:22But when the profit is above 4.5%,
10:27because the turnover is 0.11% or 11%,
10:30then when the profit of the business is above 4.5%,
10:34it's actually more beneficial
10:35if we use bookkeeping.
10:37But bookkeeping has a challenge,
10:39which is complicated.
10:41Then, for example,
10:42we need to hire new people
10:44who take care of taxes and so on,
10:46so they need new jobs and so on.
10:49But the point is,
10:50we need to educate the people
10:52that actually this incentive
10:54can't be used forever.
10:56Like now,
10:57after 7 years,
10:58there must be a new rule.
11:00Even if a new rule comes out,
11:02we don't know how long it will last.
11:04It can only be given 2 years.
11:05It can be 3 years.
11:06It means,
11:07it can't be used forever.
11:10Well, it's the government's job
11:12and all other stakeholders,
11:14they should educate
11:16that the tax aspect is actually not complicated.
11:21The tax aspect also gives incentives
11:24to the business sector
11:26that is being done by business owners on the ground.
11:29That's what's more important, actually.
11:31Aside from just issuing rules,
11:33oh, a new rule is issued.
11:34That's easy.
11:35If a new rule is issued,
11:36just issue it.
11:37Because it's just a PPP.
11:38It doesn't require a PPP agreement.
11:40The government on one side,
11:41when there's a 2-year, 3-year rule,
11:430.5%,
11:44just issue it.
11:46That's easy.
11:47But what's more important
11:49and more educational
11:50is how the government
11:51educates the whole community,
11:53how the government educates business owners
11:55about how to maximize the tax aspect.
11:58That's it, Mr. Pras.
11:59But if we look at the education
12:01or literacy pattern
12:02that has been done all this time,
12:04in your opinion,
12:05is it effective enough?
12:07And considering that
12:08the friends who work in micro businesses,
12:10we know that
12:11they are also
12:13affected by daily activities,
12:15education levels, etc.
12:17We will discuss this in the next segment, Mr. Ajip.
12:19We will take a short break.
12:20And, Mr. Mirsa,
12:21make sure you are still with us.
12:35Thank you for still joining us
12:37in Market Review.
12:38In the next segment,
12:39we will provide you with data
12:40on how much our MSME sector
12:42contributes to the national GDP.
12:45You can watch the complete data
12:47on your television screen.
12:49From 2021,
12:51then 2022,
12:52and 2023.
12:5461.07%
12:56in 2021,
12:582021,
13:00and 2023.
13:020.07% in 2021,
13:04MSME contribution to the national GDP.
13:07Then, in 2022,
13:09it dropped by 60.5%.
13:11And in 2021,
13:13it rose by 61%.
13:15Next,
13:16the MSME problem
13:18in Indonesia.
13:20What is it?
13:21Okay, let's see.
13:22The main problem is
13:24capital,
13:26and marketing.
13:28On average,
13:29it is around 22%.
13:31Then,
13:32there is steel,
13:3319%.
13:34Then, competition,
13:3518%.
13:36And energy,
13:3711.24%.
13:38Those are the common problems
13:40faced by MSME players
13:42in Indonesia.
13:43We will continue our discussion
13:45with Mr. Ajib Hamdani,
13:46Economic Policy Analyst, APINDO.
13:49Okay, Mr. Ajib,
13:50we will continue.
13:51If we talk about MSME contribution,
13:53the problems you have experienced,
13:56is this a problem that
13:58always repeats itself?
14:00Does it always repeat itself?
14:02Or does it
14:04come back to MSME players
14:06when they can feel it?
14:08Okay, Mr. Pras.
14:09What we need to observe is
14:11how the tax literacy factor
14:13in the public,
14:14in general,
14:15and business players
14:16is still low.
14:17And even if we look at the data
14:19that was shown,
14:20when asked about MSME,
14:21what is the problem?
14:22On average,
14:23they talk about capital,
14:24and then market.
14:26Almost no one mentioned
14:27tax issues.
14:28What does it mean?
14:29Okay.
14:30They don't even notice
14:31that this tax will be
14:33a potential problem
14:35when they don't
14:36do the tax aspect correctly.
14:38I will tell you.
14:39There are some of our colleagues
14:40who are starting business,
14:42or young business,
14:44or MSME business,
14:45their business is doing well.
14:47The first year is good,
14:48the second year is good.
14:49But when they don't
14:50do the tax aspect,
14:51they will be tested.
14:52What is being tested
14:53is not only the year of operation,
14:54but the previous years,
14:55even the potential
14:56of the past five years.
14:57As a result,
14:58their business is doing well,
14:59they are growing up,
15:00then it can be lost,
15:02and even bankrupt.
15:03Not a little bit like that.
15:05What does it mean?
15:06Then when businessmen,
15:07MSME businessmen,
15:08and young businessmen,
15:10they don't notice
15:12that the tax aspect
15:13is something very important.
15:15Even when it is not done,
15:16the potential is not only lost,
15:18but even the potential is bankrupt.
15:20This is what we pay attention to.
15:21But if we look at the previous data,
15:22the MSME issue
15:23does not show
15:24a tax issue.
15:25It's about that.
15:26Because the tax issue
15:27is a very basic problem,
15:28and very crucial.
15:29We can imagine,
15:30when for example,
15:31businessmen don't know
15:33about the tax issue,
15:35then they don't pay.
15:37But in the aspect of the law,
15:38they are considered to know,
15:39they are considered to understand.
15:41So, when they are
15:42taxed for the past five years,
15:44and they go bankrupt,
15:45it becomes a risk.
15:46But we see,
15:47it is not captured
15:49by businessmen.
15:51It cannot be caught
15:53by MSME businessmen
15:54that this tax issue
15:55is very important,
15:57and requires incentives
15:59from the government.
16:01That's why,
16:02when for example,
16:03PP No. 23 in 2018,
16:05that up to 4.8M,
16:07they only pay around 1.5M.
16:09Actually,
16:10when this is removed,
16:11it will become a problem.
16:12Why?
16:13When the litigation
16:14is extended to the public,
16:15MSME businessmen
16:16and businessmen
16:17who started this
16:18are still in trouble
16:19and not good,
16:20then they do not do
16:21the tax aspect correctly.
16:22For example,
16:23because it is not easy
16:24for MSME businessmen
16:25to pay their taxes.
16:26They have to do
16:27bookkeeping,
16:28they have to talk about
16:29how much is the offset,
16:30how much is the overhead,
16:31how much is the net profit,
16:32for example.
16:33And even talking about
16:34taxation,
16:35they have to prove
16:36to the tax officer
16:37that our tax is this much,
16:38our salary is this much,
16:39our bank loan
16:40is this much,
16:41and so on.
16:42It means,
16:43it requires
16:44extraordinary literacy.
16:45That's it.
16:46Government incentives
16:47in the form of
16:48PP No. 23 in 2018
16:49is a form
16:50of ease
16:51from the government
16:52that,
16:53okay,
16:54MSME businessmen
16:55do not have to
16:56do bookkeeping,
16:57how much is the offset,
16:58multiply it by 0.5%.
16:59It is a form of simplification.
17:00And one of the philosophies
17:01of the tax system
17:02is how
17:03to do
17:04a simple tax system,
17:05to do a simple tax system
17:06and make it easy
17:07for businessmen.
17:08And I think
17:090.5%
17:10of the operating
17:11offset
17:12is a form
17:13of ease
17:14so it becomes
17:15an incentive.
17:16Then,
17:17if asked,
17:18is this incentive
17:19necessary
17:20for MSME businessmen
17:21to continue
17:22this initiative
17:23or not?
17:24In our opinion,
17:25when the literacy of
17:26society tax
17:27is still not good,
17:28people
17:29or bodies
17:30who have
17:314.8%
17:32offset
17:33tend to be
17:34micro or
17:35small.
17:36So,
17:37they need
17:38a simplification
17:39of the rules
17:40instead of
17:41hiring one person
17:42to do
17:43bookkeeping,
17:44notarization,
17:45and so on.
17:46Our MSME
17:47for example,
17:483 million,
17:494 million,
17:50and that burden
17:51those businessmen.
17:52But,
17:53with the proof
17:54of PP23
17:55in 2018,
17:56so they are
17:57quite simple.
17:58Okay,
17:59our offset is this much,
18:00just multiply it by 0.5%
18:01and it's done
18:02for them.
18:03So,
18:04they don't need
18:05a new job
18:06to do
18:07bookkeeping,
18:08for example.
18:09Now,
18:10this is what we need
18:11to convey to the audience.
18:12In the context,
18:13if the literacy of society tax
18:14is still not good,
18:15then this incentive
18:16is still needed.
18:17Something like that.
18:18That's it.
18:20So,
18:21who wins
18:22how to accompany
18:23our MSMEs
18:24so they can
18:25understand
18:26when they want
18:27to start a business,
18:28it turns out
18:29after they manage the requirements
18:30to build a business body,
18:31and so on,
18:32suddenly there is
18:33a tax regulation
18:34that they must know
18:35with
18:36the various requirements.
18:37How do you see it?
18:38Who plays a role
18:39accompanying,
18:40then who provides
18:41education
18:42to the lower level?
18:43Mr. Pras,
18:44if we look at the ratio,
18:45the comparison
18:46between the number
18:47of tax officers
18:48or tax officers
18:49with our tax payers
18:50is really a lot.
18:51If we look at the data
18:52from Kemenikopu KM,
18:53our MSMEs
18:54are not less than
18:5564 million people.
18:57That's it.
18:5864 million,
18:59if we compare,
19:00these MSMEs
19:01are outside
19:02big business,
19:03then
19:04other big industrial,
19:05but
19:06in terms of MSMEs,
19:07our MSMEs
19:08are 64 million people.
19:09Let's say
19:10that's the number.
19:11And let's say
19:12it's valid
19:13as our discussion material.
19:14Then we compare
19:15with the number of employees
19:16in the Ministry of Finance
19:17who deal with
19:18tax and interest,
19:19it's about
19:2046,000 people,
19:21Mr. Pras.
19:22So,
19:23the ratio is really
19:24very far.
19:25It means that
19:26if we expect
19:27the education
19:28of tax officers
19:29from,
19:30let's say,
19:31government officers,
19:32tax officers,
19:33then
19:34it requires
19:35extraordinary energy
19:36and is very challenging.
19:37And this,
19:38we can't expect
19:39a lot,
19:40I think.
19:41So,
19:42then,
19:43the responsibility
19:44is not only
19:45the responsibility
19:46of the Ministry of Finance,
19:47but also,
19:48I think,
19:49when it comes to
19:50increasing tax literacy,
19:51it's the responsibility
19:52of all parties.
19:53And I think,
19:54APINDO also
19:55takes real steps
19:56on how
19:57we continue
19:58to support
19:59MSMEs.
20:00APINDO has a program
20:01called UMKMRDK.
20:02We support
20:03from taxation,
20:04from the market,
20:05and even
20:06including
20:07the tax aspect.
20:08That's what
20:09the associations do
20:10and I think
20:11APINDO is very committed
20:12to promoting
20:13increasing tax literacy
20:14like that.
20:15Okay.
20:16First,
20:17let's talk about
20:18the philosophical issue
20:19and the government's
20:20desire.
20:21Here's the thing,
20:22Mr. Bras.
20:23On one side,
20:24the government,
20:25in 2025,
20:26has a very tight
20:27fiscal space,
20:28has an extraordinary
20:29taxation target,
20:30more than
20:312 trillion
20:32taxation targets,
20:33and even
20:34a total
20:35receipt target
20:36of 3 trillion,
20:37from APVN,
20:383.6 trillion,
20:39Mr. Bras.
20:40So,
20:41the government
20:42wants to
20:43increase
20:44the taxation
20:45target
20:46to 3.6 trillion,
20:47Mr. Bras.
20:48Moreover,
20:49our debt
20:50is 8 trillion.
20:51With the
20:52macro indicators,
20:53it shows
20:54that the
20:55fiscal space
20:56is very tight
20:57and the
20:58government
20:59needs a
21:00better
21:01budgetary
21:02aspect.
21:03So,
21:04why is
21:05the narrative
21:06of increasing
21:07the PPN rate
21:08by 12%
21:09not yet
21:10finished?
21:11Let's discuss.
21:12So,
21:13even if
21:14the PPN rate
21:15target
21:16is increased
21:17from 11%
21:18to 12%,
21:19the government
21:20must be aware
21:21that the
21:22public's
21:23purchasing power
21:24is still
21:25not good,
21:26that the
21:27MSMEs
21:28must need
21:29more
21:30fiscal incentives
21:31so that
21:32their purchasing
21:33power
21:34is maintained.
21:35And I think
21:36incentives
21:37in the context
21:38of PPN tax
21:39rate
21:40are still
21:41very relevant
21:42because
21:43our economy
21:44is still
21:45challenging
21:46for several
21:47things.
21:48So,
21:49I think
21:50that the
21:51government
21:52must
21:53push
21:54the
21:55fiscal
21:56incentives
21:57and
21:58must
21:59focus
22:00on
22:01MSMEs
22:02because
22:03if we
22:04look at
22:05the
22:06tax
22:07expenditure
22:08from
22:0960%
22:10to 70%,
22:11the government
22:12must
22:13focus
22:14on
22:15MSMEs
22:16because
22:17if we
22:18look at
22:19the
22:20tax
22:21expenditure
22:22from
22:2360%
22:24to 70%,
22:25the
22:26government
22:27must
22:28focus
22:29on
22:30MSMEs
22:31because
22:32if we
22:33look at
22:34the
22:35tax
22:36expenditure
22:37from
22:3860%
22:39to 70%,
22:40the
22:41government
22:42must
22:43focus
22:44on
22:45MSMEs
22:46because
22:47if we
22:48look at
22:49the
22:50tax
22:51expenditure
22:52from
22:5360%
22:54to 70%,
22:55the
22:56government
22:57must
22:58focus
22:59on
23:00MSMEs
23:01because
23:02if we
23:03look at
23:04the
23:05tax
23:06expenditure
23:07from
23:0860%
23:09to 70%,
23:10the
23:11government
23:12must
23:13focus
23:14on
23:15MSMEs
23:16because
23:17if we
23:18look at
23:19the
23:20tax
23:21expenditure
23:22from
23:2360%
23:24to 70%,
23:25the
23:26government
23:27must
23:28focus
23:29on
23:30MSMEs
23:31because
23:32if we
23:33look at
23:34the
23:35tax
23:36expenditure
23:37from
23:3860%
23:39to 70%,
23:40the
23:41government
23:42must
23:43focus
23:44on
23:45MSMEs
23:46because
23:47if we
23:48look at
23:49the
23:50tax
23:51expenditure
23:52from
23:5360%
23:54to 70%,
23:55the
23:56government
23:57must
23:58focus
23:59on
24:00MSMEs
24:01because
24:02if we
24:03look at
24:04the
24:05tax
24:06expenditure
24:07from
24:0860%
24:09to 70%,
24:10the
24:11government
24:12must
24:13focus
24:14on
24:15MSMEs
24:16because
24:17if we
24:18look at
24:19the
24:20tax
24:21expenditure
24:22from
24:2360%
24:24to 70%,
24:25the
24:26government
24:27must
24:28focus
24:29on
24:30MSMEs
24:31because
24:32if we
24:33look at
24:34the
24:35tax
24:36expenditure
24:37from
24:3860%
24:39to 70%,
24:40the
24:41government
24:42must
24:43focus
24:44on
24:45MSMEs
24:46because
24:47if we
24:48look at
24:49the
24:50tax
24:51expenditure
24:52from
24:5360%
24:54to 70%,
24:55the
24:56government
24:57must
24:58focus
24:59on
25:00MSMEs
25:01because
25:02if we
25:03look at
25:04the
25:05tax
25:06expenditure
25:07from
25:0860%
25:09to 70%,
25:10the
25:11government
25:12must
25:13focus
25:14on
25:15MSMEs
25:16because
25:17if we
25:18look at
25:19the
25:20tax
25:21expenditure
25:22from
25:2360%
25:24to 70%,
25:25the
25:26government
25:27must
25:28focus
25:29on
25:30MSMEs
25:31because
25:32if we
25:33look at