This argument against a tax holiday is lazy and weak

Dear Mr. Editor,

Every time a large hotel project comes up, the same line pops up: “St. Maarten is broke, why should we give any tax holidays.” It sounds responsible at first. It sounds like people are protecting public money. But if you look at how investment and taxes actually work, that phrase is a weak argument. Enter, Planet Hollywood.

First, we need to be clear about what a tax holiday usually is. For a big resort, the holiday is mostly about profit tax, sometimes with some extra incentives added in. In the first years of a major project, profit tax is often very small anyway. The investor is building, importing equipment, training staff, slowly building occupancy, and writing off heavy start up costs. Without the project, that profit tax simply does not exist. You cannot “lose” revenue you were never going to collect.

Even with a profit tax holiday in place, the country still gains other income. Four hundred and fifty workers on payroll means wage tax and social premiums. Those workers buy groceries, pay rent, take buses, go out on weekends, which means more turnover tax for government through the businesses they spend at. The resort pays fees, licenses, room taxes where applicable, utilities, and uses local services, and those local suppliers pay their own taxes too. So even while profits are protected for a few years, cash still flows into the economy and into government.

Now compare that to the alternative. If the project decides not to build here, there is no profit tax, no wage tax from those jobs, no extra turnover tax from the new spending, no indirect jobs for taxi drivers, tour operators, or small restaurants. That is the real choice in front of us. It is not “full taxes versus free taxes”. It is “some taxes later plus many jobs and spin off now” versus “no taxes and no project at all”.

This is why “St. Maarten is broke, so no tax holidays” is such a weak way to frame the issue. If the country is truly in a tight spot, the smart move is to expand the future tax base, not shut it down. A controlled, time bound tax holiday attached to real conditions can be one of the tools to do that. Saying “we are broke” as a reason to refuse every incentive is like saying you are too hungry to plant seeds.

That does not mean every tax holiday is good or that investors should get everything they ask for. Far from it. The honest conversation is about the deal itself. What exactly are we giving up, for how long, and what exactly are we getting in return. How many local jobs, what training commitments, what share of management positions for residents over time, what local procurement targets for construction and operations, what transparency on profits once the holiday ends. Those are concrete questions. “We are broke” is not.

There is also a fairness issue that should be faced head on. Many local small and medium businesses never got a tax break. They worked through hurricanes and COVID, they paid, or tried to pay, every year. They have a right to feel that the system has often favored big outsiders. The answer to that, however, is not to block every future incentive deal. The answer is to build a clear set of rules so that every investor, local or foreign, knows what qualifies for an incentive and what the country demands in return.

That kind of framework would say in plain terms: if you invest at this scale, create this many jobs, commit to this level of local sourcing and training, you can get this specific, limited tax package for this number of years. After that period, you pay full freight. No special backroom deals, no guessing, no political favorites, just rules on paper that the public can read.

Seen from that angle, people in the sector should be careful with using “St. Maarten is broke” as a shield. It distracts from the real questions, which are: is this project good for workers, good for small businesses, and good for the tax base over the long run. If the numbers do not add up, then say so. Show that the jobs are overstated, or the conditions are too weak, or the benefits are too small compared to what is being waived. That is a strong argument. Hiding behind a slogan is not.

Being cautious is understandable. Being protective of local businesses is understandable. But if we allow lazy phrases to replace honest math, we risk turning away projects that could help pull us out of the very “broke” situation people are worried about.

In short: a five year profit tax holiday on a resort that does not exist yet is not the same thing as handing over a bag of money from the treasury. The real choice is between zero of nothing and a slightly smaller share of something much larger, with jobs and spin off attached. If we really care about St. Maarten’s future finances, we should argue our position with facts and conditions, not with an argument that sounds tough but collapses as soon as you ask, “compared to what.”

A logical citizen

(𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫 - 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴. 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳. 𝘐𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘜𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘢 “𝘓𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.”. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.  𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.)