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.

[jhannah]

Political gerrymandering! This is ludicrous. Some of it would be ruled unconstitutional, I'm sure. If they're trying to reduce the bottleneck in their ports, this might work better than they anticipate!

[mr green]

I replied to this on Princess. It is not new. I wrote about it some twelve months ago, but got little reaction, I belive that it was $100.00 per cruiser, and some environmental safeguards. 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.

[Krazy Kruizers]

Anyway - it won't bother us - our Alaskan cruises are in June.

[djallar]

I'm sure this will pass because it's another one of those "I don't have to pay it" taxes. We're all OK with raising taxes as long as it's not us paying them.

 

We want to take an Alaskan cruise one of these days, but something like this may be enough to get my nose bent out of shape and say "forget it". Besides, I can stay in PA and get rained on, snowed on, bitten by black flies & mosquitos, etc.

 

The only difference is that I'll miss seeing the beauty. But, you know what? I think palm trees and white sand beaches are beautiful too...

Stupid greedy politicians...

[bepsf]

Sure it'll pass!

 

"Lets stick it to the Lower 48 - they'll pay..."

 

CCL/NCL and RCCL couldn't care less about the pp/charges and fees - they can be passed along and pax will pay it...

 

...But there's no way on this earth Micky, Richard and Colin are gonna share 33% of casino earnings with Alaska or pay corporate income taxes to anyone, anywhere.

 

Watch the major lines deploy their fleets back to the Carib, Mexico, Hawaii and Asia for the next couple summers...

 

Juneau will be repealing that law in short time, and Alaska will be better than ever for us cruise pax after two lean years...

[kryos]

Political gerrymandering! This is ludicrous. Some of it would be ruled unconstitutional, I'm sure. If they're trying to reduce the bottleneck in their ports, this might work better than they anticipate!

As long as people want to see Alaska and all of its natural wonders, believe me ... they'll pay the tax.

 

If the market will bear it, frankly I don't blame the people for trying to get the cruiselines to subsidize their state's expenses. That's more money that stays in their pockets.

 

Alaskians have to put up with all that cruise traffic in their waters ... more now that several lines are adding ships in Alaska as an alternative to the Caribbean in the summer months. Why shouldn't they expect the cruiselines to pay for the privilege?

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[Roz]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the casino was closed while we were docked in Alaska, just like other US cities and the Caribbean. So there would be no gambling revenue. Am I missing something or just not understanding what they're wanting to do?

 

Roz

[Roz]

I live in a tourist destination city, and there are always "stick it to the tourists" proposals being bandied about. The market will only tolerate so much, and then the tax/fee/surcharge has the effect of turning business away, thereby eroding the tourism business.

 

Roz

[kryos]

Watch the major lines deploy their fleets back to the Carib, Mexico, Hawaii and Asia for the next couple summers...

 

Juneau will be repealing that law in short time, and Alaska will be better than ever for us cruise pax after two lean years...

I doubt it.

 

As long as the public demands Alaska as a destination, the cruiselines will deliver Alaska. And ... Alaska is probably a far more popular destination these days than even the Caribbean.

 

As for the amounts of these taxes the state is trying to charge ... they are actually not very much (when you consider the total cost of an Alaska cruise), so I doubt people will put up much of a stink about paying them.

 

As for the gaming revenue ... you are right. The cruiselines aren't gonna want to share any of that. But ... I was under the impression that when you are in territorial waters, you had to shut the casino down anyway? Can't you only run the casino while in International waters? At least I seem to recall this being the case when I was on Princess to Hawaii last April. I seem to recall the casino being closed for five days ... until we departed Hawaiin waters. Now, that wasn't the case during my Amsterdam cruise last month, but I figured maybe the laws had changed.

 

So ... the cruiselines would have a choice as to their gambling operations. Shut them down for Alaska cruises, or share the booty with the State of Alaska. Very simple, really.

 

LOL ... frankly, I don't blame the Alaskian residents trying to get some of their state tax burden picked up by the cruiselines. If I had to live in that Godforsaken cold place (at least for most of the year), not to mention putting up with hundreds of cruise ships every year cluttering up my waters during the short period of nice weather, I'd want to make them pay too. After all, if the folks on those ships have the money for those cruises, they can spread a bit of it around to ease my tax burden ... don't you think? :)

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[bepsf]

If I had to live in that Godforsaken cold place (at least for most of the year), not to mention putting up with hundreds of cruise ships every year cluttering up my waters during the short period of nice weather, I'd want to make them pay too.

--rita

 

Rita--

 

I have no doubt that the Cruiselines will gladly pass the add'l fees to passengers - but corporate taxes on earnings? No Way!!!

(Micky and his Dad didn't get rich by paying taxes before, and they're not about to start now.)

 

BTW - Alaskan winters in the major cruise port towns (& where most of the states population is, in Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Skagway) are milder than winters in many places in the Lower 48 - rarely sub-freezing much less sub-zero.

 

Skagway's entire economy is based on tourism, and many proprietors in those 4 towns rake it in during the summer, then close up and winter elsewhere, like Arizona and Florida...

 

...so cruise tourism is hardly a "burden" for these folks.

 

Call me callous, but really don't feel all that sorry for them.

[jhannah]

Why shouldn't they expect the cruiselines to pay for the privilege?

Oh, they do. Every new ship contributes additional port charges. And think about the ancillary business supported. Tour operators, stores, restaurants, etc. It's a tremendous financial impact.

[dakrewser]

Before condemning the Alaskans, investigate what your state, county and city do to tax: hotel rooms, rental cars, taxis, and other tourist items. Then check out what they tax cruise ships (especially in Florida & California).

 

But if you still think there's a problem, the answer is simple: don't cruise Alaska. It's gotten so bloody crowded, anyway, that even a 50% reduction in cruise traffic would still leave some ports wall-to-wall ships during June & July. Cuttng some ships out would be a boon to those who actually want to see the state.

[djallar]

After all, if the folks on those ships have the money for those cruises, they can spread a bit of it around to ease my tax burden ... don't you think? :)

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

Sure! Doncha know everyone on these cruise ships are rich!!! Let's soak the rich!!! What a crock...

[djallar]

Before condemning the Alaskans, investigate what your state, county and city do to tax: hotel rooms, rental cars, taxis, and other tourist items. Then check out what they tax cruise ships (especially in Florida & California).

 

But if you still think there's a problem, the answer is simple: don't cruise Alaska. It's gotten so bloody crowded, anyway, that even a 50% reduction in cruise traffic would still leave some ports wall-to-wall ships during June & July. Cuttng some ships out would be a boon to those who actually want to see the state.

Most often tourist taxes are passed by the politicians quietly, with little fanfare. This is a ballot initiative, which means the people of the state are directly voting on charging admission to all who want to visit. When Alaskans start to contribute as much to the US Treasury as most others on the lower 48, then...and maybe then would I not mind paying the entry fee.

I will certainly take your advice and not cruise Alaska, if they're going to depend on everyone else in the nation to pay their way.

[bepsf]

Dak--

 

Quite true...

 

But where you been lately?

Was just thinking today how I miss your posts here....

[tomc]

Roz...

If I'm not mistaken, I think the casino was closed while we were docked in Alaska, just like other US cities and the Caribbean. So there would be no gambling revenue. Am I missing something or just not understanding what they're wanting to do?

The way I take it, the state wants to get one-third of the ship's entire gambling revenues for that trip if it docks in Alaska.

[BruceMuzz]

When a 2500 passenger cruise ship calls at an Alaskan Port, the Cruise Line and the ship itself contribute about $100,000 to the local economy. The 2500 passengers spend an additional $100,000.

It's not at all uncommon to see 5 large cruise ships in one small Alaskan Town on any given day in summer. That's a cool $1 Million per day. I haven't noticed too many Alaskans refusing to take that money by chasing away cruise ships.

Apparently that Million Dollars is not enough.

Go figure..................

[rjg41]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the casino was closed while we were docked in Alaska, just like other US cities and the Caribbean. So there would be no gambling revenue. Am I missing something or just not understanding what they're wanting to do?

 

Roz

 

As most of you know casinos on Alaskan cruises open as soon as the ship leaves the dock. They rarely if ever go beyond the 12 mile zone to be out of Alaskan waters therefore they are open in Alaskan waters. Casinos are also open in Canadian waters while in the inside passage. Is Canada next for a piece of that action?

 

People mention other states that tax tourists. As stated earlier this is true but Alaskans pay by far the least state and local taxes as a percentage of their per capita income. Only 6.4% of their per capita income goes to state and local taxes. Florida is 9.2% for example and most states range from 9-11%. That does not take into account the almost $1,000/year cash payment that each and every Alaskan man, woman and child gets from the oil fund.

 

So I guess they don't want to pay a fair share of their states expenses and have others pay their way. The bridge to no where, now this.

 

The game of taxing the entire corporate profits was tried by some countries and even some states just because the company had an office in that country or state. India tried it and companies closed their offices and manufacturing operations. Florida talked about doing it a number of years ago and companies made it clear they would leave. Some did even through it never got enacted.

 

We'll see if the people of Alaska have sence enough not to bite a hand that feeds them.

[jhannah]

As more and more ships are sent to Alaska for the season, an ever-increasing number of visitors clog the ports. I'm guessing the citizens of these port towns have been inconvenienced in some way by all these people horning in on their favorite restaurant, etc., and are now wanting to be compensated for their "trouble." Just a guess.

 

If this is the case, it would be a far cry from a bus driver we had in Skagway who was so excited when cruising season came. Sure, he was making some sideline bucks driving a bus ... but he also said it really enlivened the town.

 

If the perceived problem is overcrowding, then why not just do as Bermuda has done and strictly limit the number of ships allowed in ports at any given time? That would control crowds, pollution, etc. However, I'm thinking this wouldn't fly because it would cut into the dollars they're taking in now, thus point the finger back at greed!

 

Just my two cents.