Tourists aren’t running from visitor taxes, so why are some people so scared?

Every time the subject of a visitor tax comes up in St. Maarten, the warning is almost immediate: tourists will not like it, they will look at the extra charge, choose another island and St. Maarten will end up hurting the very industry on which its economy depends. It sounds reasonable on the surface, especially in a region where destinations compete fiercely for the same travelers. But the argument becomes much less convincing when St. Maarten looks at what is already happening across the Caribbean.

Tourists are already paying visitor fees, tourism levies, accommodation taxes, sustainability charges and similar fees throughout the region. In several destinations, they are paying considerably more than the US$15 that has been proposed for an adult visitor to St. Maarten, yet those destinations continue to attract strong visitor numbers. The evidence does not suggest that travelers enjoy taxes, because few people do, but it does suggest that a modest additional charge is rarely enough on its own to determine where someone spends a Caribbean vacation.

St. Maarten Is Not Inventing Something New

St. Maarten's proposed Visitor's Tax, based on the version of the legislation submitted for review, would amount to XCG 27, or approximately US$15, for adults and XCG 18, or US$10, for minors. The legislation is still being developed and government told Parliament this month that it hopes to have the revised draft before the Council of Advice by October 1, 2026. No implementation date or date for first collection has yet been established, but government has made clear that it continues to support the principle behind the measure.

Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs has argued that visitors who make use of St. Maarten's infrastructure, services and tourism product should also make a reasonable contribution to the country that hosts them. That position has generated resistance from parts of the hospitality sector, where concerns have been raised about competitiveness and the possibility of adding another cost to the St. Maarten vacation. Those concerns deserve to be heard, but the regional experience shows that asking visitors to contribute directly to a destination is hardly unusual.

Aruba Charges More, and Tourism Keeps Growing

Aruba, one of St. Maarten's closest competitors for Dutch Caribbean and North American travelers, introduced a US$20 Sustainability Fee on July 1, 2024. Most visitors arriving by air pay the charge while completing Aruba's electronic Embarkation and Disembarkation Card, with the proceeds directed toward wastewater treatment and related infrastructure. In other words, Aruba added a fee higher than the one currently contemplated in St. Maarten and tied it to a specific need affecting the quality and sustainability of the destination.

The important part is what happened afterward. In July 2025, one year after the Sustainability Fee was introduced, Aruba received 141,904 stay-over visitors, an increase of approximately 15 percent compared with July 2024. Nobody can reasonably claim that the visitor fee caused that growth, because airlift, hotel capacity, marketing, consumer demand and economic conditions all influence tourism performance. What can reasonably be said is that a US$20 visitor charge did not result in travelers abandoning Aruba.

Bonaire Goes Much Further

Bonaire goes considerably further. Most visitors to Bonaire pay a US$75 Visitor Entry Tax, while certain Caribbean residents, children and cruise visitors qualify for a reduced rate. The fee replaced earlier accommodation and rental-car taxes and has become a normal part of visiting the island. Despite a charge five times larger than what St. Maarten has proposed for an adult, Bonaire continues to attract travelers and its post-pandemic passenger numbers have exceeded the levels recorded before 2020.

That comparison is especially useful because Bonaire is not a distant example with a completely different tourism model. It is another Dutch Caribbean destination competing for many of the same regional and international travelers. The fact that visitors continue to travel there despite a significantly higher entry tax should make St. Maarten question the assumption that US$15 will somehow become a major deterrent.

Jamaica, Saint Lucia and Antigua Already Collect Their Share

Jamaica offers another example that has existed for years. Under Jamaica's tourism enhancement system, arriving air passengers have been subject to a US$20 Tourism Enhancement Fee, while passengers arriving by sea pay a smaller amount. Revenue has been used to support tourism development, environmental management, heritage sites and improvements connected to the visitor experience. Jamaica has continued setting tourism records while the charge has remained part of the cost of entering the country.

Saint Lucia takes a different approach by attaching its Tourism Levy to accommodation. Guests at registered properties generally pay either US$3 or US$6 per person per night depending on the room rate. Antigua and Barbuda also applies a Tourism Guest Levy, usually US$3 or US$5 per person per night depending on the cost of accommodation. A visitor staying seven nights can therefore pay considerably more than the one-time US$15 charge St. Maarten is considering, yet both countries continue to compete successfully for Caribbean travelers.

Barbados, Turks and Caicos and the Dominican Republic Do It Too

Barbados also collects a Room Rate Levy from tourist accommodations, while Turks and Caicos applies a Hotel and Tourism Accommodation Tax of 12 percent to accommodation and certain tourism services. The Dominican Republic has long incorporated a US$10 tourist-card charge into its visitor system. These countries use different methods and cannot simply be compared dollar for dollar, but together they make one point very clearly: making visitors contribute through tourism-related taxation is already standard practice in much of the Caribbean.

What matters is not whether every destination uses the same mechanism, because they do not. Some charge visitors on arrival, some attach the charge to accommodation, some build it into the total travel cost, and others earmark the money for specific tourism or infrastructure purposes. The common thread is that governments across the region have concluded that visitors can reasonably be expected to contribute toward the destinations they use.

What Tourists Tell Researchers

The research tells a similar story. A study involving 1,068 tourists visiting Andalusia in Spain examined whether travelers were willing to contribute through taxes or fees toward improving tourism sustainability and the quality of a destination. Researchers found that tourists were particularly willing to contribute when the money was connected to environmental improvements and tourism services, while moderate increases in the cost of the trip did not produce the kind of dramatic fall in demand often predicted when new visitor fees are proposed.

A related study found that 75.28 percent of respondents were willing to pay something toward improving tourism sustainability. Another study published in the European Journal of Tourism Research surveyed 428 overnight visitors in Istanbul and found that willingness to pay increased when travelers were clearly told what the money would support. Tourists were less enthusiastic when no purpose was stated and more willing when the revenue was linked to preserving cultural heritage.

Tourists Want to Know Where the Money Goes

That finding may be particularly important for St. Maarten because the discussion should not simply be about whether visitors are willing to hand government another US$15. The real issue is whether visitors understand what that contribution is supposed to accomplish. A traveler may reasonably question a new charge if it appears to be another general source of government revenue, but the reaction can be different when the money is clearly connected to cleaner tourism areas, stronger infrastructure, public-health preparedness, hurricane resilience or services visitors themselves use.

This is where government has an opportunity to strengthen its case. If visitors know from the outset what the money supports and can see evidence that it is being used for that purpose, the fee becomes easier to explain. A vague tax is harder to defend than a clearly defined contribution that supports the quality and resilience of the destination.

Fifteen Dollars Is Not the Vacation

There is also the question of proportion. A person choosing St. Maarten is already making a much larger financial commitment that includes airfare, accommodation, restaurants, transportation, activities, shopping and entertainment. Against the total cost of a Caribbean vacation, a one-time US$15 charge represents a very small part of the overall expenditure. It may irritate some travelers, but irritation should not automatically be confused with a decision to vacation somewhere else.

A couple spending several thousand dollars on flights, a hotel, dining and activities is unlikely to abandon St. Maarten solely because the government adds US$30 to the combined cost of their trip. Travelers normally select destinations based on a mixture of airfare, accommodation prices, beaches, restaurants, safety, attractions, familiarity, available flights and the overall experience they expect to receive. A modest visitor fee becomes one part of that calculation, not necessarily the deciding factor.

There Is Still a Limit

This does not mean tourism can be taxed endlessly without consequences. Research involving the Maldives has shown that substantial increases in tourism taxation can eventually reduce demand, with the impact varying according to visitors' countries of origin and sensitivity to price. Governments therefore have to be careful not to keep adding fees until the combined cost materially weakens the competitiveness of the destination.

That distinction matters because warning against excessive taxation is very different from claiming that virtually any visitor tax will scare tourists away. The available research and Caribbean experience do not support such a sweeping conclusion. A US$15 one-time charge should be evaluated in the context of the entire cost of a St. Maarten vacation and against what competing Caribbean destinations already require visitors to pay.

The Industry Has Fair Questions

Hoteliers and other tourism businesses are still right to ask difficult questions. St. Maarten has longstanding challenges with tax compliance, collection and enforcement, and the industry can reasonably ask why government should create a new revenue stream before ensuring that existing obligations are properly collected. Businesses can also demand clarity about how the new system will work, whether it will create delays for visitors and how government intends to prevent additional administrative burdens.

Where the industry argument becomes less convincing is when opposition rests mainly on the assumption that tourists simply will not tolerate another charge. The experience of Aruba, Jamaica, Bonaire, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Turks and Caicos and other destinations suggests otherwise. Travelers have demonstrated repeatedly that they will continue visiting places they want to visit even when tourism-related taxes form part of the cost.

Government Must Prove the Money Is Worth It

Government's biggest challenge, therefore, may not be convincing tourists to pay the fee. It may be proving that the money will be used properly. If millions of guilders are collected and disappear into general government expenditure with little visible improvement to the destination, skepticism from residents, businesses and visitors will be justified. St. Maarten will weaken its own argument if it cannot show clearly where the revenue goes.

If the money is transparently connected to stronger infrastructure, cleaner public areas, disaster preparedness, destination maintenance, health resilience or other services that support the tourism economy, the argument becomes easier to defend. Visitors already understand the basic idea because they pay airport charges, environmental levies, accommodation taxes, resort fees and tourism taxes throughout the world. What matters increasingly is whether they believe the charge has a legitimate purpose.

The Caribbean Evidence Is Already There

St. Maarten should not introduce a Visitor's Tax simply because other Caribbean destinations have one, and government should not dismiss legitimate concerns about competitiveness or accountability. But neither should the country allow the discussion to be dominated by the assumption that a US$15 charge will automatically send tourists elsewhere. The regional evidence, combined with what tourists themselves have told researchers, suggests that argument has been overstated.

The stronger debate is not whether tourists can handle a modest visitor charge. Clearly, millions of Caribbean travelers already do. The question St. Maarten must answer is whether it can design the tax properly, keep the cost reasonable, explain its purpose and demonstrate that the money collected is being used to strengthen the destination that visitors are being asked to help support.

‍