A Visitor’s Tax of US $15 and $10 for children has been proposed (see Monday newspaper) and advised on by the Social Economic Council SER. Mention was made of similar levies introduced by Aruba and Bonaire, varying between $10 and $75 per person.
It regards two draft National Ordinances, reportedly “designed to enhance the preparedness and resilience of St. Maarten’s public health system and tourism sectors in response to economic disruptions, including those caused by natural disasters or pandemics.” The latter refers mainly to devastating hurricane-hits and the COVID-19 outbreak.
All this probably sounds good to those closely involved, including the Temporary Work Organisation (TWO) guiding reforms agreed to with the Netherlands as condition for liquidity loans provided during the coronavirus-related crisis. However, to incoming passengers actually paying the fee it will probably seem like quite a mouthful.
The other two Dutch Caribbean islands given as example based theirs mainly on environmental effects of the hospitality industry. This appears more straightforward and easier to comprehend for travellers.
It’s also in line with earlier-stated local arguments for the tax, particularly the extra burden guests place on public facilities and services without directly contributing to such.
The St. Maarten Hospitality and Trade Association (SHTA) is not exactly happy with these plans, particularly in the present uncertain business climate. It repeatedly pointed out that comparable destinations have much bigger marketing and promotion budgets too.
Truth be told, there is never really a good time for introducing new taxes. Still, the current global trade war and its consequences hardly make it an ideal moment.
Nevertheless, looking at the suggested fairly-modest one-off single amounts to be charged upon entry, this should not prove detrimental. In other words, it is unlikely to stop people from coming.
Perhaps a simpler description like “visitor impact tax” could help guests better understand and appreciate the need for this levy. What’s in a name, one might say, but when relaying perhaps somewhat unwelcome messages, there is great value in keeping it simple.
