An issue that affects nearly one-third of our population is the AOV old-age pension.
It is not only about ensuring a dignified life after years of work. There is another, equally important question: how do we continue paying for the AOV?
Why do I ask this question? Because there is a simple rule in public finance:
A structural expenditure must have a structural source of revenue to cover it.
And there are several figures that should give us reason to think carefully.
AOV of XCG 1,000
The proposal to increase the AOV from XCG 862 to XCG 1,000 per month as of January 1, 2026, would, according to the available information, require additional expenditure of:
XCG 48.1 million in 2026
XCG 49.4 million in 2027
XCG 50 million in 2028
XCG 50.8 million in 2029
XCG 51.4 million in 2030
That amounts to approximately XCG 250 million over the next five years.
And this does not even include the commitment to eventually increase the AOV to XCG 1,500.
This is not an expenditure for just one year.
It is a structural obligation.
And that is precisely the point.
These figures can be found in the Social Economic Council's (SER) advisory report on the issue, published on September 14, 2026.
But where will the money come from?
In the 2027 Budget, the government points to two important sources:
The budget surplus and the Tourist Entry Tax (TET).
This is where I want to put several figures on the table.
In 2025, a positive surplus of XCG 62 million was budgeted.
At one point, the preliminary result for the ordinary service showed a surplus of almost XCG 210 million.
But that was not the final result.
The final surplus fell to XCG 115 million.
That is ultimately a difference of XCG 53 million compared with the budgeted surplus.
This tells us something important:
A preliminary surplus is not the same as structural fiscal space.
Now look at 2026.
In its second implementation report for 2026, the Board of Financial Supervision (Cft) reported that halfway through the year, the ordinary service showed a preliminary surplus of approximately XCG 189 million.
The budget had projected a positive result of XCG 19 million.
That is a difference of almost XCG 170 million.
The difference is substantial.
But my question is:
What exactly is that XCG 170 million?
Is it structural?
Is it temporary?
Is it the result of expenditures being lower than budgeted?
Is it the result of higher revenues?
Is it related to the timing of payments?
Are there invoices that still have to be received and paid?
Or is it a combination of all these factors?
The Cft itself has indicated that several expenditure items are exceeding the budget and still have to be incorporated into a budget amendment.
We therefore cannot simply look at the XCG 189 million figure and say:
"We have XCG 189 million."
From a financial perspective, that conclusion cannot yet be drawn and would not be realistic.
The Tourist Entry Tax
This brings us to the Tourist Entry Tax.
Revenue from this tax is being considered as one of the sources for financing the increase in the AOV.
For a serious discussion about this, we need to know:
How much TET revenue have we budgeted?
How much TET revenue are we actually collecting?
And how much of that revenue can be considered guaranteed?
Why?
Because a tax that has yet to be introduced is a revenue source that carries implementation risk.
This is where the SER's advice becomes particularly important.
The SER states that if the Tourist Entry Tax is to form part of the financing, the total tax revenue should be calculated conservatively and on a net basis.
And not only that.
There must also be a fallback scenario — a Plan B in case things do not go as expected.
What happens if revenues are lower than projected?
What happens if implementation is delayed?
What happens if tourist arrivals decline?
The SER places this risk in the context of a possible international recession, natural disasters, another pandemic, geopolitical tensions and other shocks that could affect tourism.
This is not a minor detail. It is a realistic possibility that must be taken into account.
Because if tourism declines, the AOV does not decline with it.
The pension still has to be paid.
The Problem We Cannot Ignore
The AOV is a pay-as-you-go system.
Today's contributions help pay today's pensions.
At the same time, our population is aging.
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), more than 40,000 people in Curaçao were 65 years or older on January 1, 2026, representing 25.9% of the population. Within 15 years, this group is projected to double. Our population is aging rapidly.
This brings me to a simple question.
When we say:
"We have a surplus."
I ask:
"How much of that surplus is structural?"
When we say:
"Halfway through 2026, we have XCG 170 million more than budgeted."
I ask:
"How much of that money will actually be available at the end of the year?"
And when we say:
"The Tourist Entry Tax will help pay for the AOV."
I ask:
"What is the scenario if we do not collect the amount of TET revenue that was budgeted?"
This is not negativity.
It is realism.
It is responsible financial management.
It is about accountability — dunamentu di kuenta — to the people.
Because the people have the right to know not only how much we intend to spend, but also how much money is actually available.
I raise this issue because someone receiving AOV has a right to clarity.
That person needs to know whether an AOV of XCG 1,000 is sustainable, let alone XCG 1,500.
Taxpayers also have a right to clarity.
And the generation of men and women working today has the right to know whether, in 10, 15 or 20 years, there will still be an AOV for them.
If we take on a structural expenditure of approximately XCG 50 million per year, we must be able to demonstrate the structural revenue needed to cover it.
That is sound financial management.
The question I want to leave you with today is simple:
Do we have the money?
There is probably more fiscal space than the budget initially suggests.
But the more important question is:
"Will we have that money every year, including in the years ahead?"
Why do I ask this?
Because a surplus in one year can disappear the next.
A tax can generate more or less revenue than expected.
Tourism can grow, but tourism can also decline.
Social expenditures can increase.
The population can continue to age.
And the AOV?
The AOV still has to be paid.
Now is the time to make the complete financial picture fully transparent.
The question should not only be:
How much do we have today?
It should also be:
How much will we have tomorrow?
Those are two different questions.
And to me, that distinction is essential.
Drs. Luigi A. Faneyte MSc. CFE CICA CCS
Economist, financial expert and parliamentary staff member for the PAR faction in the Curaçao Parliament.