Will Alaska Cruises Substitute Mexico for Canada When they Restart?

[SelectSys]

3 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I hope not.  I still have a problem with a business being allowed to operate on American "soil", so do speak, and not be subject to American wage/hour laws.  If this kind of change is proposed, I hope that aspect is considered.   

 

What about Apple?  Do you have any issues with them doing much of their operations and almost all of their manufacturing overseas in low income, low regulation environments.  Pretty much every Bay Area high tech firm has huge operations overseas.  Even Tesla is now setting up shop in China to lower costs and compliance regulations. 

 

[ldubs]

28 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

What about Apple?  Do you have any issues with them doing much of their operations and almost all of their manufacturing overseas in low income, low regulation environments.  Pretty much every Bay Area high tech firm has huge operations overseas.  Even Tesla is now setting up shop in China to lower costs and compliance regulations. 

 

 

Do I have issues with what you describe?  Yes I do.  Several in fact!   But I would not propose we allow Apple or any other company to operate here and not be bound by American wage/hour laws.   

 

You reminded me of something I read some time ago about how long it took to build a few miles of RR track in the US compared to in Europe (Germany I think).  The difference was astounding and if I recall correctly, due primarily to regulations (some of which are good and many of which do nothing more than put consultant's dependents through ivy league schools).  

[Aquahound]

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

But a couple of nits.  They are not, by and large, foreign corporations.  And relatively few cruises are in exclusive US commerce.

 

 I don't know of a single one of the large cruise lines that's incorporated in the US.  

[ldubs]

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Me?  I like the idea of not paying twice as much for a cruise.

 

But a couple of nits.  They are not, by and large, foreign corporations.  And relatively few cruises are in exclusive US commerce.

 

I agree very few cruises are exclusive to the US, but there would be more if PVSA were tossed aside.  I don't think we should exempt cruise lines from US laws so that we can have inexpensive cruises.   

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

 

What about Apple?  Do you have any issues with them doing much of their operations and almost all of their manufacturing overseas in low income, low regulation environments.  Pretty much every Bay Area high tech firm has huge operations overseas.  Even Tesla is now setting up shop in China to lower costs and compliance regulations. 

 

There is a big, big difference between Apple, and most multi-national corporations, and shipowners.  The US tax code provides that foreign corporations that earn revenue in the US pay US taxes on that revenue.  However, the code also specifically exempts revenue earned in the US by foreign owned ships and aircraft from taxation.

[SelectSys]

15 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

You reminded me of something I read some time ago about how long it took to build a few miles of RR track in the US compared to in Europe (Germany I think).  The difference was astounding and if I recall correctly, due primarily to regulations...

 

You are correct with respect to development challenges.  I can tell you as someone who works on basic infrastructure projects  in California, there are many hurdles and hoops to go through.   

 

14 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

There is a big, big difference between Apple, and most multi-national corporations, and shipowners. 

 

Understand differences in businesses.  I was simply curious if the poster had similar views with other industries making much of their revenue in the US while simultaneously outsourcing/offshoring their production and operations.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

 

You are correct with respect to development challenges.  I can tell you as someone who works on basic infrastructure projects  in California, there are many hurdles and hoops to go through.   

 

 

Understand differences in businesses.  I was simply curious if the poster had similar views with other industries making much of their revenue in the US while simultaneously outsourcing/offshoring their production and operations.

Again, I think it is different.  Apple brings products they make overseas into the US and earn revenue on those products, and pay US taxes.  The outsourced labor is overseas, so should not reasonably be expected to conform to US labor laws.  The cruise industry takes a foreign product (their ship and their crew), bring that product and that labor to the US, earn revenue on the basis of that labor in the US, and take that revenue away tax free, and with no US payroll (virtually).

[JRG]

23 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

He's asking for a Jones Act waiver for cruise ships?

 

 

In the article the spokesman for CLIA is telling us specifically what they think.   And it sounds like they are admitting that anything can happen in the future.

 

That is a different viewpoint from the  "fear that CLIA will have fears" alibi which has been the battle cry for so long by the staunch opposition we've seen on this board.

 

The readers should understand that this article is fresh (5 days old),   and the comment is coming from a CLIA spokesperson,  

 

They (CLIA) appear to be positioning themselves for perhaps endorsing a change to the laws.  

 

 

 

[JRG]

18 hours ago, ldubs said:

You reminded me of something I read some time ago about how long it took to build a few miles of RR track in the US compared to in Europe (Germany I think).  The difference was astounding and if I recall correctly, due primarily to regulations (some of which are good and many of which do nothing more than put consultant's dependents through ivy league schools).  

 

True we do have our problems with railroads....

 

Graduates of business schools will tell you from the classic textbook case that....

 

"The Railroads didn't realize they were in the Transportation and Cargo Business,   they thought they were in the Railroad Business"

 

I'm tempted to say that the Cruiselines don't realize they are in the Transportation (and Hospitality) business,    they think they are in the Cruiseline Business.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by JRG

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

In the article the spokesman for CLIA is telling us specifically what they think.   And it sounds like they are admitting that anything can happen in the future.

 

That is a different viewpoint from the  "fear that CLIA will have fears" alibi which has been the battle cry for so long by the staunch opposition we've seen on this board.

 

The readers should understand that this article is fresh (5 days old),   and the comment is coming from a CLIA spokesperson,  

 

They (CLIA) appear to be positioning themselves for perhaps endorsing a change to the laws.  

 

Once again, you misunderstood a post.  Schmoo was pointing out they were asking for a waiver of the wrong act. 

[JRG]

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

There is a big, big difference between Apple, and most multi-national corporations, and shipowners.  The US tax code provides that foreign corporations that earn revenue in the US pay US taxes on that revenue.  However, the code also specifically exempts revenue earned in the US by foreign owned ships and aircraft from taxation.

 

 

Cheng,   the tax code does not exempt revenue,   it would exempt income.

 

Revenue -  Expenses = Income   ----  this is the financial income statement theory 

 

 There is a huge difference between Revenue and Income. 

 

It gets more complicated as you determine the taxable portion but the basic equation is pretty simple.

 

 

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

 

Cheng,   the tax code does not exempt revenue,   it would exempt income.

 

Revenue -  Expenses = Income   ----  this is the financial income statement theory 

 

 There is a huge difference between Revenue and Income. 

 

It gets more complicated as you determine the taxable portion but the basic equation is pretty simple.

 

 

And, the semantics professor is back.  Can't make your argument hold together, so you pick on the wording.  You are correct, income not revenue, but my point still holds, the cruise lines hold a unique position when it comes to earning income in the US and not paying tax on it.

Edited October 26, 2020 by chengkp75

[JRG]

Thank you.   

 

Your statement is now correct and all the beancounters, engineers, bankers, CPA's , MBA's and others who claim to be able to understand business and/or financial statement theory should sleep comfortably tonight.

 

What say you now on CLIA posturing for a change?   Now that we have seen their official statement.

 

Everybody read it,  they are responding to a lawmaker who wants to make a change and they are saying that the future may force them to consider all options.

 

I think this supports my argument and defeats your hypothesis that they are not interested in a change.

 

Markets get what they want.

Edited October 26, 2020 by JRG

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, JRG said:

 

In the article the spokesman for CLIA is telling us specifically what they think.   And it sounds like they are admitting that anything can happen in the future.

 

That is a different viewpoint from the  "fear that CLIA will have fears" alibi which has been the battle cry for so long by the staunch opposition we've seen on this board.

 

The readers should understand that this article is fresh (5 days old),   and the comment is coming from a CLIA spokesperson,  

 

They (CLIA) appear to be positioning themselves for perhaps endorsing a change to the laws.  

 

 

 

While it is from 13 years ago, here is CLIA's statement of the polling of its members:

 

"The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA, 2007) polled its own members on their sentiments toward the potential repeal of the PVSA and reported that “While a reformed Passenger Vessel Services Act might add some new U.S. ports to cruise itineraries, most of our members believe that this would not be significant, especially in light of the restrictions that likely would be attached.” Thus CLIA is currently not advocating a change to the PVSA."

 

If CLIA thought that anything significant had changed in the last 13 years, especially when covid is considered, that would lead to them wanting a change to the PVSA, since this congressman was lobbying for such a thing, don't you believe they would have expressed something more than the, at best, lukewarm "thank you" that the statement you claim to be them positioning themselves for a major change really is?  CLIA thanked him for supporting "the industry", not for supporting "its efforts to amend a law".

 

[Cruzaholic41]

24 minutes ago, JRG said:

Thank you.   

 

Your statement is now correct and all the beancounters, engineers, bankers, CPA's , MBA's and others who claim to be able to understand business and/or financial statement theory should sleep comfortably tonight.

 

What say you now on CLIA posturing for a change?   Now that we have seen their official statement.

 

Everybody read it,  they are responding to a lawmaker who wants to make a change and they are saying that the future may force them to consider all options.

 

I think this supports my argument and defeats your hypothesis that they are not interested in a change.

 

Markets get what they want.

You read things through an interesting lens. 🙄

 

The article is about an Alaskan representative who is floating the idea of a waiver. CLIA responded by saying a waiver would have done no good due to the no sail order. Those are facts. 
 

The CLIA rep went on to say no one knows what the future holds. Other than not knowing what the future holds, that comment means absolutely nothing. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Cruzaholic41

[ldubs]

7 hours ago, JRG said:

 

True we do have our problems with railroads....

 

Graduates of business schools will tell you from the classic textbook case that....

 

"The Railroads didn't realize they were in the Transportation and Cargo Business,   they thought they were in the Railroad Business"

 

I'm tempted to say that the Cruiselines don't realize they are in the Transportation (and Hospitality) business,    they think they are in the Cruiseline Business.

 

 

 

Thanks.  You know, it would be interesting to hear a cruise line exec talk about what business they think they are in.   My comment really was not about railroads.  The point was more to how difficult and costly it is to accomplish something in the US compared to other developed countries.