cruise ship tax in Alaska passed?

[fcorey]

I was looking online at voting results for the primary and it looks like question 2 may pass. As of right now it looks like 87% of the voting precincts have reported. Right now it looks like the the "yes" vote is ahead by about 5%, 52 to 47%.
I hate to say it but it does seem a bit greedy in light of their relationship with oil companies, and the fact that visitors are already taxed. Not to mention the revenue that tourism from the cruise industry brings into the state. I hope this isnt a trend where we'll see more states attempting this.

[bepsf]

Let's just hope that our Floridian friends aren't goofy enough to try and pull the same stunt...

[sail7seas]

Lets hope enough people are disgusted with the greed that Alaska bookings go down and HAL brings a ship back from Alaska to Florida for all year Caribbean cruises. We miss having no ships in the Caribbean.

[bdcbbq]

Let's just hope that our Floridian friends aren't goofy enough to try and pull the same stunt...

Their governor is related to our President.

Of course the fine citizens of FL are smart enough to not let it happen.

[sail7seas]

Lets hope enough people are disgusted with the greed that Alaska bookings go down and HAL brings a ship back from Alaska to Florida for all year Caribbean cruises. We miss having a ship in the Caribbean for a full half of the year.

[sail7seas]

sorry for the double.......I didn't think it had posted. :(

[elmorejj]

Don`t citizens of Alaska get to reap some monetary benefit from the oil taxes already? maybe they think they`ll reap something from the cruise taxes. Anyone on the boards from Alaska who might enlighten us..........jean:cool:

[jhannah]

I had fears that it could pass. And I'm wondering if HAL is already taking steps to collect. According to an ad in the current issue of "Via" (the magazine of AAA) rates are going up. It says, "Book your Alaskan 2007 Adventure now, rates increase September 30, 2006."

[Frogs]

How much should this effect cruise prices? I haven't followed this issue but I would like to take an Alaskan cruise in the next couple of years and I hope it doesn't make it more difficult for me to get what I want (suite!!!!).

Blessings!

[jhannah]

How much should this effect cruise prices? Hard to tell. I believe the head tax portion is $45. But the hit includes increased income taxes, increased discharge fees, and a higher cut of gambling revenues while in Alaskan waters. It likely won't be a huge increase. But it's the principle of the thing, IMO.

[dakrewser]

I hope more than HAL pull a ship out of Alaska - it's way too crowded as it is.

And, seriously folks, would another $100/pp be a 'make or break' for you? Just skip the vastly overpriced "paning for gold" excursion and spend a half-day walking around town. That would more than make up the difference.

The good citizens of Alaska really don't want more tourists coming. That's their perogative. Now, you could decide that you'd show them and just not go - but that's what they want! Doesn't seem like there's any way they can lose.

And do remember that most of the folks you interact with on excursions or in the shops are Alaska citizens - they're just summer help. Once the cruise ships move south, they do too.

[fcorey]

Hard to tell. I believe the head tax portion is $45. But the hit includes increased income taxes, increased discharge fees, and a higher cut of gambling revenues while in Alaskan waters. It likely won't be a huge increase. But it's the principle of the thing, IMO.

its $50 per person, in addition to the $14 per person that you already pay. They also want something like 33% of gambling revenue while ship is in Alaska. Thats the main reason the cruise industry was fighting it, the additional other things that are in the bill. The per person tax itself is bad enough. This sets a dangerous precident for other ports and thats what worries me. Not the extra $100, as dakrewser said its not that huge of an amount..but for a family of 4, I could see $200 as an unp-leasant surprise

There is also the possibility of a backlash where passengers will spend less while ashore. However I think that would be a short term thing. This was posed under the guise of being used for the environment, I hope that is how it works out, but I am very skeptical

[DCT61]

For those that are accusing Alaska of being greedy...what is the hotel/motel tax rate (aka..tourist tax) in the town where you live? How many times in the past 10 years has it been raised? How many times did you vote against it?

[duckman715]

Given that Alaskans receive an annual cash payment from the state from oil revenue of approx. $1,000, pay neither income tax nor sales tax I find their assault on the cruise industry to be a little on the greedy side. There are those who seek to limit the number of cruise ships in Alaskan waters - which may well be a good thing - and see this tax package as the best way to do it.
I can offer them some encouragement in this area. I personally do not plan to cruise to Alaska because of this bill. The 1960's protester is still there somewhere in this balding, slightly overweight 57 year old and he finds such blatant greed and the "I got mine so I'm going to just rip you off if I can" attitude of those who voted for this bill to be sufficient reason for not journeying there and further supporting what is arguably the strongest economy in the country. You win guys.

[fcorey]

For those that are accusing Alaska of being greedy...what is the hotel/motel tax rate (aka..tourist tax) in the town where you live? How many times in the past 10 years has it been raised? How many times did you vote against it?

a valid criticism, but look at more detail in what this bill does.

"The initiative would institute a $50 head tax, a 33 percent tax on onboard gambling revenue, and would subject the industry to Alaska's corporate income tax. The initiative also increases fines for illegally dumping waste from $500 to $5,000 and would requires cruise ships to hire marine engineers to monitor wastewater treatment and pollution control equipment."

"this bill up a system that allows for 50 percent of any fines collected as a result of litigation to be paid to the person with the 39-cent stamp who can bring on the lawsuit."

"there are nine pages of complex, confusing language and Ballot Measure 2, if passed, will also increase the amount of bureaucratic red tape."

Also, most of the money is going to the state, not the port cities affected
Something doesnt smell right about it. I hope I am wrong and the money it raises goes to good use, but the article I read was filled with very vocal discontent from business owners in the port cities as they fear how this will impact them.


**All quotes from Ketchikan news.

[DCT61]

Its simple.....dont go.

[sail7seas]

Exactly.....I hadn't planned to go to Alaska before this and this confirms my decision. ;) I've had little interest in cruising Alaska and this does nothing to encourage me to change my mind. I am very sure the state will limp along just fine without me or all of my friends and neighbors ever setting foot in their state. ;)

[kryos]

I hope they pay for their greed. I hope bookings on Alaska cruises drop drastically ... so much so that HAL has to pull more than one ship out of Alaskan waters ... simply because the bodies aren't there to fill them.

I take it this tax is only on cruise ships? Then fine. Hopefully the vacationing public will decide land is the best way to see that fine state, and will just book a comprehensive land tour. From what I've been told by some friends who have family in Alaska and visit that state six or seven times a year ... land is the ONLY way to see it. Cruising is nice, but only if combined with a land tour. So, why not just bag the cruise altogether?

We're not talking chump change here, are we? Isn't the tax something like $47 per day per person? If so, that's gonna add probably about $500 to the price of a cruise for a couple ... even more if there are children involved.

No, they can "stick" their fine state. I wouldn't cruise there now if the cruise were free. I don't like being taken over and that's exactly what this tax is attempting to do ... gouge money from cruise passengers. It's not like we take from their state and give nothing in return. Can you imagine the money that is spent every week in Alaska ... by those very same cruise passengers? Tours, food, liquor, shopping ... you name it. No, the residents of Alaska are just being too greedy now. But, they are making one very big error in judgment. They are assuming cruise passengers will just shrug their shoulders and pay. Hopefully, the residents of that fine state will have a little surprise coming and will find that their "revenue-generating" tax had just the opposite effect when tourism dollars begin dropping way, way off and they can't get to the voting booths fast enough to repeal their little "tax."

All I can say is that you'll never see me on an Alaskan cruise ... not as long as this tax is in place. I'd stop cruising before I'd pay an exhorbitant tax like that to ANY state.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

[B]Exactly.....I hadn't planned to go to Alaska before this and this confirms my decision. ;) I've had little interest in cruising Alaska and this does nothing to encourage me to change my mind. I am very sure the state will limp along just fine without me or all of my friends and neighbors ever setting foot in their state. ;)

And it's not even as though you can't see the state without paying the tax. If you or any of your friends decided you wanted to see that state ... and admittedly I'm told it is an awesome place that everyone should see at some point in their lives ... there are always a host of land tours you can take, coupled with day cruises on ships that probably don't have this tax assessed because they are not "cruise ships," per se.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kelmac]

It might be a great time to pull some ships from Alaska and try some creative itineraries. Let's face it, there are too many ships in Alaska anyway!(IMHO)
How about more New England/Canada cruises. NYC, Boston to Montreal.
How about summer cruises in Asia? Boston to Greenland, Iceland, and coastal Canada/New England? How about Japan, Korea and Russia? Soon, we might be able to visit Cuba!
I understand the tax, but the cruise industry has a history of pulling ships out of Caribbean Islands that increased their port taxes.
Interesting situation!:rolleyes:

Enjoy!
Kel

[sail7seas]

The vast majority of people booking cruises to Alaska don't read any of the Internet BB's and will have no clue about any change in the taxes/greed. They will be quoted the price of the cruise and will agree to pay it or not.......same as always.

It is only a very tiny percentage of cruisers who will have this information and include it in making their choices/decisions as to cruising Alaska.

[kryos]

You may be right ... but I hope not. I hope people stay reasonably abreast of these types of developments that are in the news and will realize that "hey, I can get a Caribbean cruise for less than half the price of Alaska, so why not just go Caribbean? At least they're not gouging me."

I get the feeling that our good friends from the state of Alaska feel that cruise ship passengers have money to burn, and thus won't mind this little tax. Let's hope we prove them wrong.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[dakrewser]

I take it this tax is only on cruise ships? Then fine. Hopefully the vacationing public will decide land is the best way to see that fine state, and will just book a comprehensive land tour. From what I've been told by some friends who have family in Alaska and visit that state six or seven times a year ... land is the ONLY way to see it.
But that's true of most cruise port locations, except for a few small islands (which aren't very interesting anyway). Anyone who thinks getting off a boat in Honolulu is the best way to see Hawaii, or stopping for 4 hours in Helsinki counts as knowing about Finland, or visiting Civitivechia let's you know all about Italy is sadly mistaken.

It's not like we take from their state and give nothing in return. Can you imagine the money that is spent every week in Alaska ... by those very same cruise passengers? Tours, food, liquor, shopping ... you name it.
And very little of that money stays in Alaska - or did you think Diamonds International was owned by native Alaskans? :rolleyes:

The voters knew exactly what they were doing. This isn't a grab for cash, but a way of discouraging people from visiting (and despoiling) their state.

Alaska isn't the only place that discourages people, this sign used to hang over Interstate 5 as you entered the state:

http://www.republicworldnews.com/images/article_welcome-to-oregon_229x149.jpg

[kryos]

The voters knew exactly what they were doing. This isn't a grab for cash, but a way of discouraging people from visiting (and despoiling) their state.

If that's true, then why has Alaska allowed a steadily increasing number of cruise ships to ply their waters in recent years? It's my understanding that at one time the Alaskan authorities had strict limits on how many cruise ships could be on their waters in any given season. Yet, I'm reading about more and more ships giving up the Caribbean and sailing Alaska every summer season. How come one cruise line, such as HAL, can have five ships in Alaska? How come they are not held to one or two if the Alaskan voters wanted to protect their pristine waters?

It would seem to me that there are far better ways of minimizing the despoiling of Alaska's natural treasurers, such as limiting the number of cruise ships that may sail Alaskan waters at any given time. Of course, from the standpoint of cost, tourists sailing to Alaska would probably pay even more in that situation, because space on Alaska cruises would be at a primium.

But at least we, as tourists, would know that we were paying those additional dollars because we chose to pay them ... because we really wanted to cruise Alaska and had to pay a high premium for our cabins to do so. The law of supply and demand would come into play in this situation. There is a short supply of cabins now ... because maybe HAL ... or Princess ... or Celebrity ... could only have one or two cruise ships there instead of the five they previously had ... so obviously the price on cabins on those ships are gonna be much higher if the demand to fill those cabins remains high. The state would get their goals achieved ... protection of their natural resources ... while the cruise lines would still make money assuming people still wanted to sail Alaska.

Sounds like a better strategy than this "tax," doesn't it?

Blue skies ...

--rita

[RuthC]

How about ...Boston to Greenland, Iceland, and coastal Canada/New England?
Yesssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :)

I would love to see cruises to/from Boston that go to different Canadian ports than the Boston/Montreal run does. They don't have to be limited to 7 days, either! Cruises that head out to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Greenland, then back via different ports would be fantastic!

Where do I sign up? :D

[sail7seas]

Yes, yes, yes.......

I am right there with you, Ruth.

Iceland, Greenland, any northern ports.........

Sailing from/back to Boston is Wonderful!!! Sure, we live here so it is easy, but for those who have to travel, Boston is a GREAT city for pre/post stays.

[jhannah]

We're not talking chump change here, are we? Isn't the tax something like $47 per day per person? The head tax is not PER DAY.

Sec. 43.52.020. Rate of tax. The tax imposed by AS 43.52.010 - 43.52.095 is levied at a rate of $46 a passenger per voyage.

The election results were fairly close. So that does say that not all Alaska citizens are in favor of this measure.

[kryos]

The head tax is not PER DAY.

Sec. 43.52.020. Rate of tax. The tax imposed by AS 43.52.010 - 43.52.095 is levied at a rate of $46 a passenger per voyage.

The election results were fairly close. So that does say that not all Alaska citizens are in favor of this measure.
Thanks for that correction. I just finished reading some articles about the tax and noted that I erred in thinking it was per day. I guess $46 per passenger is not that bad, but I still can't get a clear explanation of exactly what that tax will go to pay for.

If we're talking wildlife conservation or other items that will go toward preserving the pristine waterways of Alaska, then maybe the tax is not altogether a bad thing. But if we're talking about a tax that will merely increase the government's coffers ... add to the salaries of the politicians ... then it stinks. All that tax stands to do is cut into the small amount of money that the merchant makes selling trinkets, or the small-time restaurant operator makes serving cruise passengers a light lunch. Naturally, this tax is gonna make some cruise passengers mad, and they will take that anger out on these types of citizens by spending their extra dollars onboard rather than in the Alaskan economy.

So, has anyone had more success than I? Can anyone point me to an article that specifically lists what this "tax" is to be used for?

Blue skies ...

--rita

[grandsix]

We cruise alot, but it won't be to Alaska anymore. Carnival stock was down today 8/24/06 as they expect less people cruising to Alaska.

[thomasale]

Never been and I am not getting the urge to change my mind

[pat54]

The Cruise Tax Law will not survive Federal legal challenges, the initiative is legally flawed.

Local port taxes are allowed under Federal law, but the Alaskan $46 “head tax” goes to a special fund, not directly to local port taxes. This is a violation of the Constitution, because it is an entrance fee. The Constitution allows for free travel between the States.

In addition, the corporate income tax, and head tax that will be levied on cruise ships in Alaskan waters violates international treaties. This violates the Constitutional provision that States cannot enact laws that conflict with Federal / International treaties. Our international treaties govern when and how foreign flagged ships pay taxes and fees in U.S. waters. This provision opens a huge can of worms. If Alaska can charge a cruiseline income tax, can New York charge British Airways an income tax when they are in New York airspace? No, the US State Department will not allow this.

Federal Courts will strike most provisions from this initiative.

As for the observations of Alaskan greed from other posters – I travel to Alaska on business every other month; it has been my observation that Alaskans hate taxes, but only for themselves. There is a feeling of entitlement amongst a majority of Alaskans that the Tourists don’t pay enough, and us “outsiders” should pay them for their natural resources. Sad, given that most Alaskans don’t understand the economic impact of tourism on the State.

[RedmondCruiser]

Thank you pat54. Your entry appears to be very well informed. --- some initiatives are written with intentional flaws so that they will be over turned by the courts and then the initiative writers loudly claim how the system is fixed against them. We have a professional anti tax writer in Washington who does just that. Could be the Alaska initiative was written by people who want to curry favor with the voters.

[kryos]

We cruise alot, but it won't be to Alaska anymore. Carnival stock was down today 8/24/06 as they expect less people cruising to Alaska.
Yeah, baby! Keep coming down so I can grab some when it hits the all-time low. :)

Believe me, the stock will go back up again ... it's inevitable. And that's where I will make the money for my next cruise. :)

Blue skies ...

--rita

[dakrewser]

For all of you who are condemning Alaska & Alaskans for this new tax, what are you doing to repeal the "travellers' taxes" in your own state, county and city? You know - that 14-20% tax on hotel rooms, rental cars, airport taxi fees, airport exit fees?

Any Hawaiians here? For the rest of you, Hawaii does it differently - they simply have a two-tiered pricing policy: one for residents and a different, higher price for visitors. Who's willing to take on that hidden "travellers' tax"?

And, oh by the way, all those "little shopkeepers" you're feeling sorry for? Few of them are Alaska residents, they simply move in during the tourist season, sell their trinkets then move on to Hawaii, southern California or even Florida when the Alaska weather turns cold. And if there's one think Alaska needs fewer of than tourists it's fly-by-night retailers selling cheap, Chinese-made "authentic alaska" souvenirs.

[Randyk47]

Well....got to say this all has me really upset! Just when Alaska moved onto the "200 Cruises I Want to Take" list....at Number 200....they go and do something like this! :rolleyes: At age 59 and only cruising once a year I figure I might not make it past cruise Number 40 as it is so maybe it's not a big issue for me. :D

[duckman715]

For all of you who are condemning Alaska & Alaskans for this new tax, what are you doing to repeal the "travellers' taxes" in your own state, county and city? You know - that 14-20% tax on hotel rooms, rental cars, airport taxi fees, airport exit fees?

Any Hawaiians here? For the rest of you, Hawaii does it differently - they simply have a two-tiered pricing policy: one for residents and a different, higher price for visitors. Who's willing to take on that hidden "travellers' tax"?

And, oh by the way, all those "little shopkeepers" you're feeling sorry for? Few of them are Alaska residents, they simply move in during the tourist season, sell their trinkets then move on to Hawaii, southern California or even Florida when the Alaska weather turns cold. And if there's one think Alaska needs fewer of than tourists it's fly-by-night retailers selling cheap, Chinese-made "authentic alaska" souvenirs.

You might wish to check the Hotel/airport/etc taxes & fees in Alaska which ARE ALREADY IN PLACE before you start making this comparison.

[kikiwik]

I don't know what problem is. It's your choice to travel to Alaska or not and it won't make any difference to most people. It's just $46 per person they'll add on to there trip. If you choose not to go because of a little thing such as this you dont' know what your missing then.

[duckman715]

I don't know what problem is. It's your choice to travel to Alaska or not and it won't make any difference to most people. It's just $46 per person they'll add on to there trip. If you choose not to go because of a little thing such as this you dont' know what your missing then.
Quite true it is an individual choice but the added cost is more than the $46 you indicate. The per individual charge is $50. Add to that the 33% of casino take plus the corporate income tax which are also included in the new measure and the charges could be significant. Based on history I do not believe the cruise lines will eat this extra cost but will pass it along in the form of higher fares.
The cost / benefit breakpoint varies from party to party and for some the added costs will be a deciding factor. I'm sure the voters considered this when casting their ballots.

[dakrewser]

You might wish to check the Hotel/airport/etc taxes & fees in Alaska which ARE ALREADY IN PLACE before you start making this comparison.

But the typical cruiser AND cruise line aren't paying those, are they?

[duckman715]

But the typical cruiser AND cruise line aren't paying those, are they?
Then what exactly was your point in referencing the hotel tax. All localities have them but no others, of which I am aware, charge an "entry" fee in addition to the various port fees, taxes etc. Alaska already has port fees based upon the number of passengers and the size of the ship.

It really is a moot point. As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, they can charge whatever they want. I really don't care. The market will determine if the purpose is served. I just don't think it's totally honest when the implication is that they do not already also charge the same fees and taxes as all other communities who serve cruise lines.

[dakrewser]

Then what exactly was your point in referencing the hotel tax. All localities have them but no others, of which I am aware, charge an "entry" fee in addition to the various port fees, taxes etc. Alaska already has port fees based upon the number of passengers and the size of the ship.

If you missed my point, then I'm sorry for that. But the fact that, say, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kentucky don't charge a head tax for cruise ship passengers really doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion, does it?

[fcorey]

If you missed my point, then I'm sorry for that. But the fact that, say, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kentucky don't charge a head tax for cruise ship passengers really doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion, does it?

Dave, I do see your point, however the states you list do not have this tax opportunity, but Florida, Louisiana, Texas, or other states with ports could also do this. It sets a precident that I sincerely hope will cot spread as those costs will surely be passed on to passengers.

Your point about hotel and airport taxes/fee is also a valid one. The rate differences between a hertz neighborhood location and an airport location can be 20% or more. Hotel taxes and such are at an all time high.

I dont have any problem with the $50 per head charge as a port fee, if it was to deal with consequences of cruise travel volume, and the money went to the port cities affected. There are probably too many ships in Alaskan waters at one time anyway.

What I do take issue with are some of the other provisions in the bill. Its nine pages and reads like stereo instructions. As for greed of Alaskan citizens, my home state could be found guilty of that. I have noticed that states that have no income taxes try to find other ways of raising revenue, and call it anything but a tax, or have no problem with taxes on non-residents. Trust me when I tell you nothing will fire up voters in NH like talk of taxes. So I conceed calling Alaskans who support this greedy isnt necessarily fair. However many of the provisions in the legislation are also not fair to the cruise lines that bring many passengers and their dollars to the state.

[dakrewser]

Dave, I do see your point,

Your point about hotel and airport taxes/fee is also a valid one. The rate differences between a hertz neighborhood location and an airport location can be 20% or more. Hotel taxes and such are at an all time high.

I have noticed that states that have no income taxes try to find other ways of raising revenue, and call it anything but a tax, or have no problem with taxes on non-residents. Trust me when I tell you nothing will fire up voters in NH like talk of taxes.

Thank you. I do remember when the Granite Staters were first accused of profiting off all the alcoholics in Massachusetts. :rolleyes:

By the way, it's the state's waterways that are being trashed in Alaska, not the local ports.

[truetwo]

For those that are accusing Alaska of being greedy...what is the hotel/motel tax rate (aka..tourist tax) in the town where you live? How many times in the past 10 years has it been raised? How many times did you vote against it?

very true, all towns/cities/counties/states have some kind of hotel tax BUT now Alaska wants another $50 per person just to go there, PLUS get kick backs from gaming and corporate income taxes from the ship lines. Believe me, the $50 extra wouldnt be the problem here except that the cruise lines will have to pass down their costs from the other items.

the problem is this; pay an additional $50 to go to Alaska on a cruise, so why shouldnt Florida or Wyoming or Missississipi or any state not want you to pay an additional $50 per person too. Hey our slogan here in Virginia is "Virginia is for Lovers" as long as you can pay the additional $50 per person to come visit us.

if Alaska can charge me the $50 then why not every other state? especially the bigger states that are more tourist/cruise friendly like FL, CA, TX to name a few.

as a TA i will gladly book you an Alaska cruise, but dont complain when i hit you with the extra $50 pp PLUS have to hit you with the added other costs and still get my 10% from you. i would rather book you a land tour to alaska and save you the $50 pp.

pj

[catl331]

Ha Ha! As a Floridian I already thought that the state should tax $75 for anyone flying in from ALASKA! (Especially those that leave there for the winter.) Just keep going there but stop spending in the ports--no trinkets, no salmon bake, etc. (at least $50 worth.)

[dakrewser]

the problem is this; pay an additional $50 to go to Alaska on a cruise, so why shouldnt Florida or Wyoming or Missississipi or any state not want you to pay an additional $50 per person too.

Because no one would pay even $5 to visit Mississippi???

If this really cuts down tourism in Alaska, I'd be very surprised. I just hope it will curtail the huge number of cruise ships heading there each summer. HAL should reevaluate and keep one or two in the Caribbean year-round...

[bepsf]

the problem is this; pay an additional $50 to go to Alaska on a cruise, so why shouldnt Florida or Wyoming or Missississipi or any state not want you to pay an additional $50 per person too. Hey our slogan here in Virginia is "Virginia is for Lovers" as long as you can pay the additional $50 per person to come visit us.

if Alaska can charge me the $50 then why not every other state? especially the bigger states that are more tourist/cruise friendly like FL, CA, TX to name a few.

pj

Because as someone succinctly posted earlier - it's against US federal law to do so.

This won't stand up in court - it will be repealed on the basis of being unconstitutional.