Passengers to Alaska may soon face an extra $50 tax.

On August 22nd Alaska voters will decide on extra taxes imposed on alaska cruise goers. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14076915/

There is also a nice picture of the RCCL Diamond Princess in the background.

On August 22nd Alaska voters will decide on extra taxes imposed on alaska cruise goers. Here is a link to the article:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14076915/

There is extensive discussion and debate on this issue at:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=387231

I am voting against the tax.

Something else to think about... They say that this tax is for Alaska visitors. As an Alaskan, would I be exempt on paying this tax when I book an Alaska cruise? Hmmm...

Taters

My understanding is that not only does the state of Alaska want to levy a $50 per head tax, they also want to charge the cruiselines Alaskan corporate tax, and receive 1/3 of all casino earnings? Is this correct? (I read this on the HAL board.)

My understanding is that not only does the state of Alaska want to levy a $50 per head tax, they also want to charge the cruiselines Alaskan corporate tax, and receive 1/3 of all casino earnings? Is this correct? (I read this on the HAL board.)

Yes you are correct. This just about sums up what the proposal is all about. There are some other provisions in the proposal but those three are the most important issues.

Just a thought, but isn't Congress currently debating on opening up Alaska to oil drilling?? I would think that stopping this from happening would be a better use of time and money by Alaskans.

While $50 per person to improve the docks and facilities is ok with me (as long as this is where the money goes - think of the tax on airline tickets), putting any extra charges to the cruise ships would be passed down to the cruisers in the long run.

Just a thought, but isn't Congress currently debating on opening up Alaska to oil drilling?? I would think that stopping this from happening would be a better use of time and money by Alaskans.

There has been oil drilling going on in Alaska for almost a century now. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is controversial in most of the States, but not in Alaska, where almost 90% of people polled over the past few years are for it (oil revenues provide almost 90% of the state's income, and result in very low taxes and an annual payout to every resident of about $1,000).

Murray

There has been oil drilling going on in Alaska for almost a century now. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is controversial in most of the States, but not in Alaska, where almost 90% of people polled over the past few years are for it (oil revenues provide almost 90% of the state's income, and result in very low taxes and an annual payout to every resident of about $1,000).

 

Murray

Absolutely true about the oil and Alaskans sentiments.

As for the $50 tax, I would be surprised if it is approved. Too big a chance it will hurt our visitor industry which is vital to our economy as well.

As for the $50 tax, I would be surprised if it is approved. Too big a chance it will hurt our visitor industry which is vital to our economy as well.

I think a bill imposing a $50 tax could have passed - with the added commercial privacy invasion and casino profit-sharing, it's discriminatory at best and has no chance of passing the voters, much less the courts if that happened.

Murray

I wonder if the impending state govt cash shortfall (due to losing oil revenues while the pipelines are shut down) might influence how Alaskans vote on this measure. (yes, I know this money isn't to be used for day to day govt operations,but governments seem to have a way to change how cash gets spent once it's on the books)

I'll be watching closely.

-Monte

BTW-I wrote the above fully understanding that passage or failure of this item would in no way effect the present situation...but as voters, we all sometimes forget that kind of fact when we're in the booth

jmo

-Monte

eghtball14, great poll and thread! Don't miss our continuing news coverage of the vote: http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1761

We've gotten many responses via e-mail, and I look forward to reading more on this thread. Melissa

I am very much looking forward to our first Alaska cruise and land tour next June. If the measure passes (and right now it looks like it will), then I think the cruiselines CAN pass along that extra $50/pp "tax" to those of us who have already booked our cruises. If cruiselines raise prices further to make up for taxes on casino revenue, I'm guessing only those who haven't paid a deposit before the price increases will have to pay more.

I think that some of the voters might have been influenced to vote for this as an additional way for the state to raise money, since they have recently seen a loss of much of the states revenue from the closing of the pipeline. I don't believe the fact that this money won't (shouldn't) be available as general funds made much difference to some, they just saw another source of $.

Aside from that, we've cruised Alaska several times and are going back in just a few days. This will probably be our last Alaska cruise. We are able to drive to both Seattle and Vancouver but the cruise fare already is more than our total outlay for a cruise from Fl (including air). In fact, we're in an inside cabin on the Norwegian Sun coming up, and the cost of our last cruise from Miami on the Norwegian Jewel, in a balcony cabin, with air, was lower.

I'm glad we've cruised Alaska, but it was a hard decision to cruise there this year. To me, additional charges will put it over the breaking point. My biggest regret about this is that my decision is exactly what the sponsors of this bill hope it would be. They aren't after $, what they really want is less cruisers.

jmo

-Monte

So the (3) taxes you pay every time you fly is fair or the tax on telephone and cell phone usage originally enacted in 1898 to pay for the Spanish American war which only last month was stopped is fair or the taxes you pay the federal governemnt so they can provide aid to Saudi Arabia is fair or the taxes paid every time you buy goods stored in aluminum cans or plastic bottles and on and on and on. So $50 a head is what a couple bottles of booze or 2 minutes in the casino? Big deal.

So the (3) taxes you pay every time you fly is fair or the tax on telephone and cell phone usage originally enacted in 1898 to pay for the Spanish American war which only last month was stopped is fair or the taxes you pay the federal governemnt so they can provide aid to Saudi Arabia is fair or the taxes paid every time you buy goods stored in aluminum cans or plastic bottles and on and on and on. So $50 a head is what a couple bottles of booze or 2 minutes in the casino? Big deal.

Well, I just went back and read what I posted and I didn't see any mention of anything you said. Get new glasses and you'll see I only mentioned it's already cheaper for us to cruise out of Fl than to cruise Alaska. So that'll be what we do in the future.

Have a good day & work on that reading comprehension.

-Monte

The prices for a cruise to Alaska are already higher than one to the Caribbean but I guess if we want to see Alaska I guess we will have to pay the tax. But will they stop the tax once the new piers are built and any other cruise related improvements are made or will they continue to take advantage. They want us as tourists to come and visit and spend money but lets see if we can squeeze out some more while we have them here.:mad:

Larry

For all who are upset about the possibility of Alaska adding taxes for cruises and cruise passengers, ask yourself one question - does my state/city/locale already do the same or similar?

Does your community impose taxes/surcharges/levies that are aimed at visitors? Is there a hospitality tax, a hotel/motel tax, restaurant taxes, car rental fees that are primarily designed to impact tourists - you know what tourists are, the people who don't vote locally ?

You may not like what Alaska may do (it's not illegal and is their decision), and you may choose to go elsewhere (that's your decision), but then don't be offended when your own community's actions cause others to get upset and opt to avoid your city/town/state on the same grounds.

<<<There is also a nice picture of the RCCL Diamond Princess in the background.

I believe you are correct that the picture is Diamond Princess but it doesn't belong to RCCL.

Caroliner,

Don't assume that I'm upset or angry with Alaska/Alaskans in the least. I'm not. I just won't be going back on a cruise ship. Besides, I enjoy cruising the Caribbean.

-Monte

For all who are upset about the possibility of Alaska adding taxes for cruises and cruise passengers, ask yourself one question - does my state/city/locale already do the same or similar?

 

Does your community impose taxes/surcharges/levies that are aimed at visitors? Is there a hospitality tax, a hotel/motel tax, restaurant taxes, car rental fees that are primarily designed to impact tourists - you know what tourists are, the people who don't vote locally ?

 

You may not like what Alaska may do (it's not illegal and is their decision), and you may choose to go elsewhere (that's your decision), but then don't be offended when your own community's actions cause others to get upset and opt to avoid your city/town/state on the same grounds.

Good Grief YES. I just spent several days in NYC- willingly I might add. Taxes were about $75 on a room charge of $375. Will I go again- absolutely, I already go 2 - 3 times/year. A mere $50 will not keep me from traveling to Alaska either. :)

For all who are upset about the possibility of Alaska adding taxes for cruises and cruise passengers, ask yourself one question - does my state/city/locale already do the same or similar?

 

Does your community impose taxes/surcharges/levies that are aimed at visitors? Is there a hospitality tax, a hotel/motel tax, restaurant taxes, car rental fees that are primarily designed to impact tourists - you know what tourists are, the people who don't vote locally ?

Do I think it's wrong of them to ask? NO

Do I like the idea? NO

But if I have to pay for it I will. We already decided before this tax that this is our one and only trip to Alaska. We many other places we plan to visit and I'm sure we will pay HIGH taxes in all of them.

If you don't want to pay the price to cruise to Alaska, skip the cruise and do a land tour! As greatam said on another thread - there's so much to see in the interior of Alaska that you could spend several weeks touring and spend less money than if you cruised for the same amount of time.

After two Caribbean cruises, my husband and I went on a Baltic cruise last summer. Lots of people go on cruises just to cruise (like my mom), but I want to cruise because the ship goes somewhere special...and Alaska is special. Europe is special...Australia & New Zealand are special - and I hope to go there some day. As far as I'm concerned...after you've seen a few Caribbean islands, they all look alike...so no big deal.

My all-time favorite cruise was to Alaska. It is and was worth every penny, and if the price were to rise $100 per couple etc. I'm ok with that, I would still go. Heck, I can't wait to do another Alaska sailing, only adding on a land portion as well. To me it is one of those "grin and bear" it kind of issues (and I'd be grinning really widely if I was planning another Alaska sailing!).

 

Laura

The cost of cruising to Alaska will go up much more than $100 per couple if the bill passes. You are forgetting to include the cost of the 33% tax on casino revenues and the payment of state corporate income tax. These extra taxes will greatly decrease the revenues of the cruiselines. Thus increasing the fares will be necessary to make up those lost revenues.

Another thought that I had was, how will CA, WA, NY, NJ and FL react to the passage of these taxes? What would happen to the cruise industry if all these states passed the same set of taxes?:eek: