From January 1, residents of Bonaire, St. Eustatius, and Saba earning the minimum wage will be required to pay income tax, following the adoption of an amendment by a majority in the Dutch House of Representatives. The amendment, put forward by ChristenUnie, GroenLinks-PvdA, and D66, faced opposition only from PVV and VVD. Island councils from Bonaire and Saba, along with the Central Dialogue Bonaire, lobbied extensively for the amendment’s approval.

Finance Minister Eelco Heinen expressed concerns about the amendment just hours before the vote, cautioning that it would reintroduce income taxes for minimum-wage earners while exempting higher incomes from paying increased taxes. Heinen warned, “This may result in significant financial burdens for those on minimum incomes, while higher earners avoid additional tax responsibilities.” Despite his objections, the amendment was passed.

The decision has sparked significant concern among workers who recently saw the legal minimum wage increase to align with the subsistence minimum. While this raise was a welcome development, these workers will now face income tax deductions starting January, along with the expiration of subsidies like the energy allowance for low-income households.

In contrast, higher-income residents in the Caribbean Netherlands stand to benefit. An anticipated reduction in the second tax bracket threshold to $75,000 was scrapped due to the amendment. As a result, individuals earning up to $320,000 will continue to pay the lowest income tax rate, undermining efforts by past and present governments to create a more equitable tax system.

The decision also creates logistical challenges for the Dutch Caribbean Tax and Customs Administration. With only six weeks until implementation, a surge of new taxpayer files must be processed. Officials from the Ministry of Finance have warned about potential software instability and the high costs of updating systems to accommodate the changes.

This development has ignited debate over fairness in the distribution of tax burdens, as many fear the amendment disproportionately affects the most vulnerable while offering significant relief to higher-income earners.

4o