Fighting Math

The Cft says the country’s opening free liquidity for 2026 is just XCG 13 million, with the year-end balance projected to fall to XCG 5 million, a level it describes as extremely low and risky for meeting obligations and handling setbacks. That is a warning that the country is operating with very little room to breathe. One serious setback, one delay, one unexpected obligation, one hurricane and government could find itself under even more strain.

In many respects, the Cft is only reinforcing what Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs has already been saying: the country’s current revenue structure is no longer sufficient to support the full weight of its obligations with any confidence. Government expenditures continue to rise, long-standing commitments remain in place, and the country's capacity to generate additional revenue has not kept pace with the demands being placed upon it. In simpler terms, the old revenue structure is not strong enough to meet the country where it is today.

Without meaningful revenue growth, aka "new money", there is little prospect of building a surplus. Without a surplus, there is no realistic path toward stronger reserves. Without stronger reserves, there is no resilience. A country in that position is left managing from one period of strain to the next, with limited room to plan, invest, or absorb shock.

Far too often, the discussion around revenue-generating measures becomes a political reflex. The instinct is to resist first and examine later. That may be good politics for some, but it is not good national management. No sensible observer is suggesting that every measure advanced by the Minister of Finance should be accepted automatically. But a proposal should be tested on its merits, not killing it because it is politically easier to shout against revenue than to explain how the country will survive without it. Because survive without it, it may not.

That is the proper context in which the Minister’s proposals, including a tourist levy, a dividend withholding tax, future weight-based road tax reform, and stronger tax enforcement supported by digital modernization, should be considered. The better approach, then, is not to automatically fight every revenue proposal as if the very idea is offensive.

The better approach is to test each idea carefully: Is it fair, is it efficient, who pays, who benefits, how much will it realistically bring in, and can the country administer it properly? Those are the questions of a serious country facing financial pressure. Rejecting measures for narrow political reasons, without offering a workable substitute, may feel satisfying in the moment, but it does not solve the underlying cash problem.  

The government cannot keep spending more than its system can support and then pretend the gap will close by wishful thinking. A country cannot demand better roads, better schools, stronger healthcare, improved public services, salary obligations, debt obligations, and emergency readiness while refusing to have an adult conversation about how the money will be found. At some point, avoiding that discussion becomes irresponsible. In a word, leadership must rise.

And, we dare say, this is not just Marinka Gumbs’ problem. It is likely the problem of every finance minister who comes after her for years to come. St. Maarten is entering a phase where creativity in revenue generation will be necessary. Not optional, necessary. St. Maarten is no longer in a position where it can afford shallow thinking on this issue. The money problem is real. The growing pressure on government finances is real.

Every proposal should be examined with care. Every concern should be heard. Every impact should be weighed. But the search for additional revenue cannot continue to be treated as though it is itself the threat.

It is not.

The real threat is the continued refusal to confront fiscal reality with the seriousness it requires.

‍