Roseburg’s price motion asks the simplest question: did the consumer actually save?

Government can exempt a product or announce relief, but the ordinary shopper is ultimately interested in one thing: did the price actually go down? A motion from MP Sjamira Roseburg, passed in Parliament, attacks that question. Rather than treating tax exemptions and consumer prices as two separate Government matters, Roseburg wants them connected.

Her proposal is built around a simple principle: if Government gives up tax revenue specifically to make basic necessities more affordable, there should be a mechanism to ensure that the benefit reaches the person standing at the cash register.

That is what makes the motion more significant than another general call to “do something” about high prices. It attempts to create a chain connecting tax policy, retail prices, Government monitoring and public reporting.

The problem Roseburg is trying to solve

St. Maarten’s Business Turnover Tax, commonly known as BBO, already exempts a limited group of basic necessities. Roseburg’s motion notes, however, that vegetables, fish, meats other than chicken, cooking gas and several other household staples are not included in the current list.

She intends to address that separately through legislation expanding the list of BBO-exempt necessities. But her motion identifies another problem that may be even more important.

Removing BBO from a product does not automatically guarantee that the store will reduce the shelf price. There is presently no legal requirement forcing the business to pass that tax benefit on to consumers.

Suppose Government decides that a particular food item deserves tax relief because families are struggling to afford it. The intention is clearly to reduce the cost to the household. But if the final retail price stays exactly the same, Government collects less revenue while the consumer receives little or no measurable benefit.

Roseburg’s proposal essentially asks: what is the point of sacrificing tax revenue in the name of affordability if nobody is checking whether affordability actually improves?

Connecting Finance to TEATT

The motion identifies what can best be described as a missing bridge inside Government.

The Ministry of Finance deals with taxation. The Ministry of TEATT, through its economic inspection functions, deals with prices and consumer-related economic matters. According to the motion, there is currently no legal mechanism connecting the two so that when Finance grants tax relief on an essential product, TEATT systematically checks whether the retail price reflects it.

Roseburg wants to close that wide void. In simple terms, Government would no longer be satisfied with saying, “This product is exempt from BBO.” Government would also have to ask, “What did the product cost before the exemption, what does it cost now, and did the consumer receive the benefit?”

Government may already have some of the power

One of the more interesting aspects of the motion is Roseburg’s argument that Government does not necessarily have to wait for new legislation before doing something.

The motion points to Article 2 of the Price Ordinance, which it says already gives the Minister of TEATT authority to establish maximum prices and impose requirements concerning how businesses administer prices. Roseburg argues that this authority has in practice been used mainly during declared emergencies rather than as a continuing consumer-protection tool for essential goods.

Her first proposed route would therefore be temporary action under existing authority.

Under that option, the TEATT Minister would establish temporary maximum or reference prices and price-administration requirements for basic necessities that are already exempt from BBO. The arrangement would remain until Roseburg’s proposed amendments to the BBO legislation create a permanent system.

The benefit of this approach is speed. Cost-of-living pressure exists now. If the legal authority is already available, Roseburg’s argument is that consumers should not have to wait through an entire legislative process before Government begins monitoring whether existing exemptions are working.

The second route creates a permanent system

The alternative contained in the draft motion is more structural. Government could amend the Price Ordinance itself, creating permanent authority for the TEATT Minister to set and monitor maximum or reference prices for goods classified as BBO-exempt basic necessities.

Option A essentially says: use the power Government already has while Parliament works on the law.

Option B says: change the law governing prices so the system becomes permanent and does not depend on emergency conditions.

Whichever route is eventually chosen, however, the objective remains the same: BBO relief should be accompanied by price oversight.

The Inspectorate becomes central

Roseburg also wants economic inspectors to have a continuing role.

Regardless of which legal route is selected, the motion asks Government to give the TEATT Inspectorate, IETA, a structural mandate to periodically monitor the prices of BBO-exempt necessities, rather than activating that role only during emergencies.

This is one of the stronger elements of the proposal because laws and exemptions have limited value without enforcement.

A supermarket could be required to maintain price records. Inspectors could compare changes over time. Government could identify unusual increases. Businesses could be asked to demonstrate how prices were calculated. The existence of regular monitoring could itself discourage businesses from absorbing tax relief into their margins.

The purpose would not necessarily be to dictate the price of everything sold in St. Maarten. It would create additional scrutiny around a narrow category of products that Government has already determined deserve special tax treatment because they are essential to households.

The ‘basic basket’ could be the most useful tool for consumers

Roseburg proposes something else that could have a direct public benefit: twice every year, Government would publish a comparative price overview of the exempted necessities.

The motion calls this a “basic basket.” The report would go to Parliament and also be made available to the public, showing whether BBO exemptions are actually translating into lower retail prices.

This is important because cost-of-living discussions are frequently driven by individual experiences. Everyone knows when their grocery bill feels higher. What is often missing is consistent public information showing how the same group of essentials has moved over time.

A regularly published basket would allow residents to see trends. Parliament could question Government using the same data. Government could determine whether its policies are working. Businesses would know that changes in essential-item prices are being tracked. It introduces accountability on all sides.

Why expanding the exemptions is also important

Roseburg’s separate legislative proposal would expand the existing list of basic necessities exempted from BBO and introduce mandatory price pass-through, labeling and monitoring requirements. The potential benefit is particularly relevant for lower and middle-income households because food and household essentials consume a greater share of their income.

A wealthier household and a struggling household may purchase the same bag of vegetables or tank of cooking gas, but the increase hurts them differently. When more of your income is already committed to rent, electricity, food and transportation, even modest increases in basic items leave less money available for everything else.

That is why targeted relief on necessities can be more meaningful than broad relief that benefits every category of consumption equally.

The motion still depends on good execution

There are practical questions Government would have to answer.

Price controls that are set unrealistically can discourage businesses from stocking products. Reference prices require reliable information about wholesale costs, freight, insurance, storage and reasonable business margins. Monitoring requires inspectors, data and administrative capacity.

The objective should not be to make businesses sell goods at a loss. It should be to distinguish legitimate costs from a situation where a tax benefit intended for households simply disappears somewhere between Government and the shelf.

The motion recognizes part of this implementation challenge by requiring Government to report back to Parliament within 90 days on the approach selected, how the Price Ordinance is currently being used outside emergencies and whether IETA has the capacity to perform structural monitoring.

The real value is making relief traceable

The strongest merit of Roseburg’s proposal may ultimately be its simplicity. Government should know what happens after it introduces relief.

If BBO is removed from cooking gas, vegetables, fish or another essential product, someone should be able to demonstrate whether the shopper benefited. If prices did not decline, Government should know why. If businesses faced higher shipping or purchasing costs that erased the benefit, that should also be visible.

Roseburg’s motion does not pretend Government can control every factor driving prices on an import-dependent island. What it does say is that when Government itself deliberately intervenes through the tax system to make life cheaper, the country should be able to follow that benefit all the way to the consumer.

For St. Maarten households struggling with the cost of basic necessities, that missing link may be exactly where the cost-of-living discussion needs to go next.

‍