Alaska Trying to Tax Cruise Lines

[rjg41]

The residents of Alaska:

 

1) Have no income tax

2) Have no state sales tax

3) Got the highest percentage of federal money back per tax dollar they send to Washington. They have been #1 in this department most of the past 20 years and never less than #4 out of the 50 states. We all know about the bridge to nowhere.

4) Every resident, adults and children, gets a yearly payment from an oil fund ($846pp in 2005)

5) the resident tax burden (all state and local taxes) as a percentage of per capita income is the lowest of all 50 states (2005)

 

Now, per Cruise News Daily a ballot initiative (put on the ballot by a petition of Alaskans) will appear on the ballot in Alaska for the August 22, 2006 election.

 

Voters will be voting on a package of four tax measures:

 

1) to add a $46 tax on every cruise passenger.

2) add another $4 tax on every cruise passenger to cover the cost of an Ocean Ranger on each cruise ship to monitor its emissions

3) put a 33% tax on the cruise lines' gambling operations while in Alaska

4) make cruise lines subject to state corporate income tax, even though their vessels are foreign-flagged.

 

This from a state whose residents pride themselves on self-reliance.

[mr green]

This is not new. I made a similar report, some twelve months ago, but had no reaction. I do not recall what was proposed at the time, but I believe that it was $100.00 per passenger, and an enviromental safeguard, but no mention of a gambling tax. john

[rjg41]

John, the differance is that it was an idea then and now it is on the ballot. The cruise industry just lost in court to void the petitions that put it on the ballot. They have not decided to appeal it or not.

[Ula]

First we have to wait and see if it passes, also I see a couple provisions that will be challenged in court so may never materialize. Numbers 3 & 4 being the most controversial.

So I think we are actually looking at a 50.00 increase. Where can I apply for the Ocean Ranger job?

Worst case it passes and #3 and #4 are upheld. Then and this is MHO, the cruise industry should boycott Alaska. The loss of tourist dollars will over turn the whole thing.

Rule of thumb in a tourist based economy and I live in a town that is tourist based, come, have fun, spend your money, and go home. We treat tourists like royalty. We sure do not make up taxes for them. But then we only pay our mayor 30.00 a year. It is an elected office not a career.

[TNTLAMB]

The difficulty is in a community that is based on tourist income is providing and maintaining the super structure that it requires to get those people in and out of the town to spend their money. That unfortuantly falls upon the local community. Land-based tourist centers have that mechanism throught their bed-taxes etc. In addition those tourist are staying ina and eating in those communities. The cruise ship passenger spends very few of this vacation dollars in the community he is impacting.The trouble with the cruise industry is that on any given day a town of 1100 permanent residents is inundated with as many as 12 - 25,000 cruise passengers/crew something that doesn't happen in even West Yellowstone in that portion. Their spending as an overall group is small. The tour companies are owned and staffed from out of town or the cruise companies and the profits of course go out of town, the stores that have sprung up are seasonal and many are owned by out of town interests (who ever thought we'd see Diamonds International in Ketchican) and staffed by seasonal out of towners. Land based portions of the Alaskan Experience happen on trains owned and operated by the cruise lines, lodging owned by th cruise lines etc. etc. When the cruise lines leave for the year the locals who again by some estimates are out numbered 30- 1 in the summer by cruise related personal and paxs are left to pay for the roads, sewer systems fire departments, road crossing guards etc. and cleaning up after the tourists with massive waste disposal costs. The cruise lines are willing to take the profits and expect the locals to tax themselves to allow to pay for the super structure to allow them those profits. The massive federal dollars you refer to are not significant when you factor out those dollars spent on equalization dollars for native education, federal and military equalization because of the military's and exemption from local taxes. Alaska din'tt need a sales tax or income tax until the cruise lines shoed up, their oil was enough.. Even in little ol' Montana where I live, we are considering a sales tax in order to recoup some of the expense of the costs of tourism. If any of you are naive enough to believe any local economy would prefer tourist dollars over industry dollars think again. Minimum wage service sector jobs are sinking the economies of tourist destinations. Much of the difficulty in the Carribean with tendering etc. is because the locals have determined that the cost of being a cruise line destination may not be worth the expense. They are scrambling with ways to recoup the costs associated with their popularity. Thus the local 500 passenger tenders, lack of dock space etc. I think Alaska's response is measured reasonable and probably appropriate. Us cruisers are not nearly as popular or important to the locals as we might think.

[Ula]

TNTLAMB,

Good take on the issue. I actually spend more money in the towns than on the ships, and I raise my hand and say, I refuse to go into any Diamonds International. I have not been in one, I will not go in one. But out here no major chain is allowed in town, everything is local owned. Let us just say I do not attend the shopping talk.

Alaska itself does charge high prices for everything. In one port on our first trip I spoke with some locals, they would drive to Canada to get their goods. I like to visit with locals.

I can not compare to the problems Montana is having, was there years ago in an ancient VW van we converted to camp in. Total cost 500.00. Beautiful state. I do think for Alaska some revenue must be coming in since ISP courted RCI to come in and spend money. I really hope that place does not have a Diamonds International.

[TNTLAMB]

Alaska is in my opinion one of the few places where the ports do matter and yes they have Diamonds International and even have tanzinite for sale! Princess has been good to Alaska in many ways much of the cruise structue docks etc have been bought and paid for by them (and is owned by them). As RCI starts its big move to Alaska, it is not suprising that they have been asked to step up with their checkbook. If you read about the tendering issues this yoear in the western Carribean, it ain't going to be anything compare to what Alaska will be. I can't locate the numbers but it was extrodinary the pax size they were and the pax size projected. We are talking SEVEN figures. I suspect the biggest change we will see is the local governments in US port cities pressuring the fed to change the unarguably archaic Jones Act so the flam foreign registrations of these ships by US corporations will come to and end and there will be greater accountability by the Cruise Lines. The Gambling cruises alone.....