Alaska voters just made life tougher for the cruiselines

[jhannah]

Given that the population of some of the ports triples or quadruples when cruise ships are in town, cruise ship passengers certainly put a measurable burden on the infrastructure of those communities.

Thing is, the collected funds (according to the initiative) go into the state's general fund -- not to the port towns.

[kryos]

elmorejj........what an unpleasant post...go back to bed and get up on the right side . :mad: :mad:

Why is his post unpleasant? He doesn't like Alaska. I don't either. Like him, I prefer warm weather destinations ... Hawaii or the Caribbean. So, like myself, he is just saying that he will cruise to those destinations that appeal to him.

 

For those who like Alaska and what it offers to cruise passengers, all the power to them.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

Thing is, the collected funds (according to the initiative) go into the state's general fund -- not to the port towns.

I think it's actually funny. This tax isn't gonna stand the test of time. Even if the federal government doesn't repeal it, the state government eventually will when they have all the local businesspeople screaming about lost profits.

 

My guess is that once cruise passengers get wind of the fact that they are being gouged some $50 per person by the state just to sail their waters, those folks will say "Fine ... I'll pay the tax ... but I'll spend less on land in the future." At least that's what I'd do if I were planning an Alaskan cruise.

 

It would be one thing if this tax was specifically to be used for environmental and preservation programs ... then I think people could deal with it ... and probably without too much in the way of hard feelings. But it's not. Its purpose is only to increase the coffers of the state government ... to be used for any purposes they see fit. So, this tax is gonna do more harm for the economy than good, and I'll bet it gets repealed within a year.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

Given that the population of some of the ports triples or quadruples when cruise ships are in town, cruise ship passengers certainly put a measurable burden on the infrastructure of those communities.

Cruise ship passengers do far more good for the infrastructure. They are far from a burden.

 

Many a local economy has gone from barely subsisting to thriving because of the dollars that tourism has brought into their economy. Cruise ship passengers don't just stay on the ship. They get off at ports and when they do get off, they spend money ... whether that be for tours provided by local tour companies, dining in port-side restaurants, taking advantage of various entertainment options in port, etc.

 

Believe me, if cruise ship passengers were placing that much of a burden on the local economy of Alaska, the state would have just banned or limited cruise ship traffic in its waters.

 

Tourism is big business ... believe me, Alaska needs the cruise ships and the thousands of tourists they bring each and every week.

 

As for paying a tax on hotel rooms ... the ships already pay port fees and taxes every time they dock or anchor. So, cruise ship passengers, in effect, are already paying for the privilege of visiting Alaska's various ports. It's included under the heading of "port charges." Hotel guests, of course, don't have to pay that. They pay a room (or resort) tax instead. So, in effect, what you have here are cruise passengers being asked to pay both ... the resort tax and the port charges. No fair.

 

In my opinion, this tax is not a matter of making the cruise industry pay for the services they receive. It's a matter of making the individual passenger ... you and me ... pay, because the cruise line will just pass that $50 per head tax on down to each and every "head" onboard that ship. So, for what those "heads" pay in taxes, the government will benefit. The business people in the port towns will lose because, obviously, if you take my money in one way (a head tax), I'll have less money to spend in another (adding to the local port economies by spending money ashore).

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[RedmondCruiser]

On another thread (same subject) "pat45" brought up an interesting point. From what was said the way in which the initiative was written would constitute an entrance fee and that is not constitutional. Therefore all this worry may be for not. This initiative will in all probablity be overturned. Then of coarse the initiative sponsers would say that the courts are stacked against them. --- In all probability it may have been intentionally flawed from the start.

[truetwo]

Gizmo, you are right and perhaps I should not have taken that stance with the quote and to elmorejj-

 

Elmorejj - I appreciate your views of not wanting to see Alaska but your quote came across to me as sarcastic, sorry if I misread the intent of your words. And I might add that since we live in Central Ohio which seems to be a great crossroads of road travelers --- if our state could collect a $50 tax from travelers we might answer the state's question of balancing our budget. :)

 

Dianne

 

thats the next thing, EVERY state and/or country doing this. i dont mind paying an extra $50 per person, family of 4 is $200, so 1 less excursion maybe. the main point is that Alaska voters WANT this but it has NOT been approved by the state legislature YET. No big deal that alaska is now the ONLY state in the entire country that feels it can tax any foreign flagged vessel in its waters. the alaska supreme court in 1998 rulled in this favorably; However, it has never been challenged in the US Supreme court.

what is really at stake is the other hidden costs: the 33% tax on gaming while in alaska waters, gee any cruise to/from alaska is in its waters about 80% of the cruise. the other sweet deal is the cruise lines now having to pay alaska state corporate tax ohh and disclosing profits from shore excursions.

 

so the $50 per person is really nothing, except that it goes to the state general fund where from $1000 per state resident is a refund. only state that does that too. but the main costs will be from the cruise lines, not only adding $50 a head but how much more to off set the 33% tax and the corporate tax. so that $50 per person can quickly grow to over $100 or $200 or more making alaska the mose expensive cruise destination.

 

i would encourage everyone to visit alaska, a beautiful state and the people were friendly ohh and thankful that we spent $1000's of dollars in the towns on excursions/gifts/etc. but i would suggest that if your going to visit alaska then fly there and make it a land based vacation.

 

pj

[truetwo]

I guess I'm in the minority. Looking at it the other way, why should a huge industry escape any of the costs of providing services? If hotel rooms are taxed (and they are, pretty much everywhere in the U.S.) is there some reason why Alaska shouldn't collect taxes to offset some of the costs of services to support the tourist industry? Given that the population of some of the ports triples or quadruples when cruise ships are in town, cruise ship passengers certainly put a measurable burden on the infrastructure of those communities.

 

I think you'd find that in Europe and a number of other places that the local taxing authority also imposes taxes, and the cruiselines survive.

 

If the tax on gambling is so onerous, then we'll quickly see cruiselines cordoning off the gambling areas when they're in the affected area. Anyone expect that to happen anytime soon?

 

all ports have port charges of some kind. i dont think most people even knew that they had already been paying $7 per person to go to Juneau and Ketchikan, so included in the total price was alreay $14 per person. even in Europe and the Caribbean, this is common, no big surprise. BUT now Alaska is getting greedy uping the ante to $50 per person and wanting gaming taxes and corporate taxes.

 

maybe this all b/c a certain senior senator from alaska is pist he didnt get his hidden bridge to no where approved last year, oh and he is lobbied probably everyday from the big oil companies. or it could be that another alaskan politician had his offices raided by the FBI. if you cant steal/hide/negotiate money from the US Government then go after the people, but i'm rambling.

 

bottom line is we all have been paying port and/or destination charges as part of the cost of cruising, we normally dont even know how much it is, but sake of arguement say its $10 a head to visit a port x 2300 paxs on a ship x 20 ships a year or more, well you can do the math and see that port (blank) can and does make some money.

 

reports vary but it was between 500,000 to 900,000 people that cruised to alaska last year, now take that x $50 a head and now add the other taxes they want on gaming and corporate state tax. now imagine what will happen when all the other major ports, states, countries decide they want in.

 

since some of the cruise lines have already lost some headway on the stock exchange this past week and are already looking at other quarterly losses, i would hope they are sending an army of lobbyists to alaska to get the state legislature to not pass this bill.

 

as to the burden of the ships coming into alaska ports. maybe it is a burden for 2-3 ships of 2300 paxs, or better per ship, to pull into Skagway with a population of only about 800 people, but i'll tell you they forget all about the burden when 6-8000 people are spending MONEY and are the biggest source of income and revenue, for what is only about 10 weeks of the year.

 

pj

[ASue]

I'm just wondering how many people are going to pay out $90.00 for a passport to cruise (for those who don't have one already) To me that is worse than paying a extra port tax. I'm thinking NCL ships in Hawaii are going to have big price increases as that will be the only cruise you don't have to have a passport for.