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

[StillLooking4Adventure]

The Alaskan government doesn't need any revenue to fund its operations or services since the oil industry is picking that up. I'm not aware of any huge deficit in state or local budgets resulting from the cost of the infrastructure that the cruise ships use. So, that leaves me with the third option - that this is the people of Alaska's way of telling us that we aren't welcome there.

 

I'm more saddened by that realization than by any amount of additional cost that might result from this plebiscite. I cruised to Alaska last year and I found the people quite pleasant. I had no idea that they would hang a giant "Visitors Not Welcome" sign up.

 

I am assuming you are speaking from ignorance, not malice. Alaska is unlike any other state in the Union. We have a state that is 3 times the size of Texas yet has only a relative few areas where local taxes could support its citizens. In Anchorage we pay property taxes that are as high as I used to pay in Florida. The revenue from the Oil companies buying Alaskan Oil, (notice I said buying Alaskan oil not "giving the state") does not fund the local communities. Many towns and cities are in the red and cannot even pay their electric bills. Last winter one town lost its Electric until the State decided to step in. A great deal of the money from the sale of oil funds state government and the rest goes to the permanent fund. The money paid to Alaskans is only interest on this fund. The fund is there for when the Oil money dries up. At one point in the not too distant past oil was below 10 a barrel. Production has decreased yearly. We do not have other industries to support the state besides oil and tourism. (Although that is changing slowly). Every bit of building infrastructure in the state costs more due to winter conditions and the distances involved. Not all Alaskans approve of the so-called bridges to nowhere and if this bill passes, it will be with a slim majority. But please know that the fact Oil is so high now does not mean it has in the past or will forever be able to fund the states budget.

 

And I didn like some of SEAMAMA's response. We are like a huge state park that needs to be preserved for the entire country. Don't forget, this bill was sponsored by Alaskan environmentalists.

[cruisingbug]

Depending on which port you are going to, you might be paying even more than $50 just to visit that one port - and since most people only look at the total taxes and port fees they don't know about that island/port's high taxes.

 

So true. Bermuda has some of the highest port charges but it doesn't seem to affect those who cruise there, if they even know they're paying extra. They're just starting to loosen restrictions on cruise lines (req. three-night stay) - which will open the floodgates to the larger ships stopping for one night and causing perhaps some of the same overcrowding issues that some ports in Alaska experience.

 

Apparently there is a movement in that state to go back to limiting the number and size of ships permitted to sail in Alaskan waters....sounds good to me.

 

I agree.

 

Mkaplan: I'm confused - did you agree with seamama or no? I can't tell if you inadvertently added an "n" to "did" or left off the "'t" on "didn't."

[duckman715]

When my state gives me $1,000 per year just for showing up, then perhaps I'll agree with you. Until then Alaska is simply killing the golden egg laying goose with simple greed. What are your income taxes by the way?

[rienreiter]

From the MSNBC article:

 

Another disturbing section of the bill would allow Alaskans to report violations of the law and receive up to 50 percent of any fines collected. Worse, when citizens succeed in collecting the money, they would have to split it 50-50 with the lawyers who file the suit. “Clearly, this is an incentive for frivolous lawsuits against cruise lines,” McMurren says. “There’s something in the bill for everyone to hate — except lawyers, who authored the bill.”

 

Now I see where this is coming from. And now you know where (or should I say who) the money is going to.

[Terpnut]

Well folks, it looks like the ballot measure is going to PASS: 52.4% Yes vs. 47.6% No with 382 precincts out of 439 reporting so far...

[nurseone]

I don't post often and I for one have no problem withthe $50.00 pp tax and would have no problem paying it if it stopped there but it doesn't - when you take all the other items into consideration - the income tax, the monitor on board (who pays for that and at what price) and all the other things I have a problem with it and yes I feel Alaska doesn't want us there. So be it. Guess I'm glad I've done Alaska and wanted to do it again but will just have to see how far out they price it. Might be worth it the first time but if I'm going to spend big $$ will go somewhere I've never been before and I think this could stop repeart cruises to Alaska. Thanks for reading

[katree]

I'm planning an Alaska cruise, and as a solo traveler already find the cost a stretch. I think I'll still go, and just skip excursions, shopping, etc. to keep my same budget if the tax passes.

[StillLooking4Adventure]

When my state gives me $1,000 per year just for showing up, then perhaps I'll agree with you. Until then Alaska is simply killing the golden egg laying goose with simple greed. What are your income taxes by the way?

 

The payment of the permanant fund to Alaskan Citizens has nothing to do with this tax. By federal law all monies from this tax must go to improve and upkeep the ports. 4 dollars of it goes for an on board monitor to prevent pollution.

 

Mkaplan: I'm confused - did you agree with seamama or no? I can't tell if you inadvertently added an "n" to "did" or left off the "'t" on "didn't."

 

I meant did.

 

Another disturbing section of the bill would allow Alaskans to report violations of the law and receive up to 50 percent of any fines collected. Worse, when citizens succeed in collecting the money, they would have to split it 50-50 with the lawyers who file the suit. “Clearly, this is an incentive for frivolous lawsuits against cruise lines,” McMurren says. “There’s something in the bill for everyone to hate — except lawyers, who authored the bill.”

Now I see where this is coming from. And now you know where (or should I say who) the money is going to.

 

This is just a repeat of more of the cruise lines 2 million dollar propaganda campaign being parroted by a travel agent, McMurren, who is worried he will lose commisions. This was a bogus argument. The law actually says that an Alaskan bringing a violation to the attention of authorities shall recieve from 25-50 percent of the money recoved for the violation from the cruise company. This is an incentive to a whistleblower who would normally be at great risk against the big guys.

 

 

the monitor on board (who pays for that and at what price)yes I feel Alaska doesn't want us there. So be it.

 

The cost for this $4 per person is included in the total of $50. This has nothing to do with Alaskans not wanting cruisers, it has to do with Cruise ship companies paying their fair share. Burmuda and other Carribean countries charge more for their port fees.

 

I think I'll still go, and just skip excursions, shopping, etc. to keep my same budget if the tax passes.

 

I wouldn't bother wasting money on an Alaskan cruise if you can't afford excursions. They normally cost from 150 to 300 per person, so if 50 puts you over your budget for any shopping or excursions, you may be on the wrong cruise. Perhaps a short cruise to Mexico would be better where you can go ashore and just snorkel for free. Most people save up quite awhile to be able to fully enjoy this once in a lifetime trip.

[Gone Cruising]

Hmmm......?

 

7 Night Caribbean Cruise in 2007 for two - $ 1,600.00 balcony

7 night Second Cruise to Caribbean in 2007 for two - $ 1,600.00 balcony

 

OR

 

7 night Alaskan Cruise in 2007 for two - $ 3,200 balcony..... for now......

 

 

Decisions,decisions...... it'll be a tough one :D

[Yukon]

Hmmm......?

 

7 Night Caribbean Cruise in 2007 for two - $ 1,600.00 balcony

7 night Second Cruise to Caribbean in 2007 for two - $ 1,600.00 balcony

 

OR

 

7 night Alaskan Cruise in 2007 for two - $ 3,200 balcony..... for now......

 

 

Decisions,decisions...... it'll be a tough one :D

 

If you can seriously say that cruising the Caribbean and cruising Alaska have ANYTHING in common except the ships, the Caribbean is definitely where you should go. Perhaps a few hundred thousand other people making that choice for that reason will get the diamond and tanzanite and other junk shops out of Alaska ports.

 

Murray

[denali1]

Maybe the other 49 states can decide to sell it back to Russia. It,s not the 50 per person, its the principle. Greed, greed, and more greed.

 

As I said in an earlier post, as an Alaska resident, I truly dislike this initiative. Did not vote for it.

However, you should know that we had an abysmal 29% of registered voters show up at the polls. The other 71% didn't bother. It was a state primary election, and lots of people won't vote in anything but a general election, if even then. The vast majority of residents did not weigh in on this issue.

Of those 29% who did vote, almost 48% voted against it.

 

As mkaplan notes, the states geography is massive. There are people living here literally 500-800 miles from a cruise port., or more. They see no harm in the measure, probably figuring it won't affect them or their businesses. They don't see tourists, and did not think this thru.

 

I suspect, if there is an analysis of the votes in the cruise port towns, (and larger towns, such as Anchorage and Fairbanks, which receive lots of folks on land excursions pre or post cruise), it would show most oppose the measure. Their jobs and livelihoods depend on the visitor industry. The question is, did they bother to vote?

 

It might look like greed. But the people I talk to who voted for it, did so because they want the cruise industry to join all the other businesses here who have to pay corporate income taxes, etc.

I rarely hear anyone here express dislike for the ships or the passengers....except maybe the enviromentalists (who sponsored the measure).

Tens of thousands of jobs here depend on the travel industry.

 

When one visits here and purchases our goods, you pay little, if any, sales tax. Our gas taxes, should you have a rental car, are among the lowest in the US. Yes, we have hotel and rental car tax, but they are far less than most states. Lest you think residents get a free ride, we pay very high property taxes. Our land and home values are pretty high, and we are taxed accordingly. Homeowner and Business owners carry the vast majority of Alaska's tax burden, not our visitors. Mka plan did a great job explaining the oil business here. It is not the cash cow people think it is.

Right now, and for the unforeseeable future, our oil production is massively reduced thanks to BP's poor maintenance on their pipelines.

 

Please consider looking back at the port charges you have paid if you cruised to other destinations. I know when I cruised in Europe, it was well over $200 a person. Panama Canal was outrageous as well. Doesn't make Alaska port charges palatable of course. But it is food for thought.

[Oregon81]

Alaska cruises already overpriced, and now with the new tax it will be outrageously expensive. I hope Princess, HAL, and the other big Alaska lines will move a few ships out of Alaska next summer.

 

Then lets see how the Juneau and Skagway voters feel about cruise passengers. A 20% drop in passengers would put those cities into recession!

 

I will certainly be avoiding Alaska from here on out. It isn't the $50 bucks but rather why go somewhere I'm not welcome?

[BIGDADDYRICH]

I Live In Las Vegas. What If We Charged Everyone $50 Just To Get Here And Have The Priviledge To Gamble. We Can Use The Money To Build More Casinos.

[StillLooking4Adventure]

Alaska cruises already overpriced

 

You may be right, but Alaskans don't set the prices for the Cruises, the Cruise ship companies do.

 

Then lets see how the Juneau and Skagway voters feel about cruise passengers. A 20% drop in passengers would put those cities into recession!

 

If you read any of the above responses you would know the chances are that very few tourist related citizens of Juneau or Skagway voted for this.

 

I will certainly be avoiding Alaska from here on out. It isn't the $50 bucks but rather why go somewhere I'm not welcome?

 

We will miss your presence. Maybe you should go book another of those inexpensive LA to Hawaii cruises I see you took last year. I know Hawaii is very inexpensive and has hardly any taxes above $50.

[StillLooking4Adventure]

I Live In Las Vegas. What If We Charged Everyone $50 Just To Get Here And Have The Priviledge To Gamble. We Can Use The Money To Build More Casinos.

 

Can we get any more bad comparisons? If Alaska got the same percentage of income from the cruise lines that Las Vegas gets from the Casinos and Gambling income, there would be no tax. Alaska gets no tax, that is zero, from the cruise industry... until now.

[Mike2131]

On one hand, I fully support protecting the natural wonders of Alaska - and everywhere else. I am also prepared to back up that support by putting my money where my mouth is.

 

That being said, I always wonder about where the $$ go and how those funds are administered. I think government is inheirently inefficient (too many pet projects for politicians). I also feel that this type of head tax should be partially paid or matched by the cruise lines. I am sure they probably pay some hefty fees now, but I have no idea how high those costs are.

 

Lastly, Alaska is a very expensive destination but I want to spend my hard earned dollars at home - especially these days. If I know that I can help ensure that the beauty of Alaska will be preserved for future generations then I am OK with this tax (not happy but OK if it really goes to help something I support).

[duckman715]

Can we get any more bad comparisons? If Alaska got the same percentage of income from the cruise lines that Las Vegas gets from the Casinos and Gambling income, there would be no tax. Alaska gets no tax, that is zero, from the cruise industry... until now.

So, mkaplan tell me again, what are your state income taxes? How 'bout sales taxes? Oh, that's right you don't have any. My state isn't rich enough to forego these funding sources. If Alaskans want to tax those who don't live there as a means of paying for the ports, which supply so much of the revenue for the state through the tourists, that's their business. But please don't make it sound as though Alaskans are scraping by & can't afford to maintain the ports themselves. Especially since these ports sustain the local economies.

I'm fine with whatever taxes you wish to impose. I can, and do, choose to go elsewhere. You don't seem to understand that on an Alaskan cruise Alaska is only part of, not the entire, draw. It's the cruise itself. At some point the price determines the destination since it's about the cruise anyway.

[TomAndJane]

 

 

I wouldn't bother wasting money on an Alaskan cruise if you can't afford excursions. They normally cost from 150 to 300 per person, so if 50 puts you over your budget for any shopping or excursions, you may be on the wrong cruise. Perhaps a short cruise to Mexico would be better where you can go ashore and just snorkel for free. Most people save up quite awhile to be able to fully enjoy this once in a lifetime trip.

 

mkaplan,

 

I have to say that I was starting to follow your logic and understand what you were trying to say until this last statement. I have been to Alaska twice and have another cruise planned for next year. I have spent money on shore excursions, shops, bars and eating establishments both times. To me this was part of the experience and I absolutely loved it. Having said that, when you tell people don't bother coming to Alaska if you can't afford shore excursions, don't you think that adds fuel to the fire of "They don't want us here'? Alaska is beautiful whether you enjoy it from the ship, on shore or during an excursion. From someone who has already been there and is coming back, I will enjoy it more from the ship and think twice about spending money a shore because of this tax. If that makes me look like an idiot or someone who is cheap so be it. It is just the principle of the idea that if I choice to see this beautiful state by a cruise ship, I have to pay an extra $50 per head. In two years I will probably take my mother and father to Alaska, it is something they have wanted to do for their entire life and haven't been able to. Yes $50 for a single person may not seem like much to you but when you pay for four you are adding $200 onto an already expensive cruise. Where do you think that money is going to come from? From the money that I would have spent on shore or on excursions and that is just a fact of life. I wish I could say that I fully understand what this is for but at this time I can't.

 

Tom

[FigsGrandPa]

I am assuming you are speaking from ignorance, not malice. Alaska is unlike any other state in the Union. We have a state that is 3 times the size of Texas yet has only a relative few areas where local taxes could support its citizens. In Anchorage we pay property taxes that are as high as I used to pay in Florida. The revenue from the Oil companies buying Alaskan Oil, (notice I said buying Alaskan oil not "giving the state") does not fund the local communities. Many towns and cities are in the red and cannot even pay their electric bills. Last winter one town lost its Electric until the State decided to step in. A great deal of the money from the sale of oil funds state government and the rest goes to the permanent fund. The money paid to Alaskans is only interest on this fund. The fund is there for when the Oil money dries up. At one point in the not too distant past oil was below 10 a barrel. Production has decreased yearly. We do not have other industries to support the state besides oil and tourism. (Although that is changing slowly). Every bit of building infrastructure in the state costs more due to winter conditions and the distances involved. Not all Alaskans approve of the so-called bridges to nowhere and if this bill passes, it will be with a slim majority. But please know that the fact Oil is so high now does not mean it has in the past or will forever be able to fund the states budget.

 

And I didn like some of SEAMAMA's response. We are like a huge state park that needs to be preserved for the entire country. Don't forget, this bill was sponsored by Alaskan environmentalists.

 

If taxes are necessary to preserve the Alaskan wilderness, why does this bill single out cruise lines and its passengers? What about the people who fly or drive into Alaska each year? And, if this were solely a revenue issue, why was it put to a popular vote? Isn't the Alaska Legislature capable of making such a decision? The people of New York, Miami and the other cities mentioned on this thread didn't get to vote on the hotel and other taxes that have a disproportionate impact on visitors. Why did the people of Alaska get to vote on it, unless it were a thinly veiled referendum on cruising itself?

 

As far as environmentalists are concerned, they vary widely in their approaches to these issues, and some are so radical that they would be quite happy if human beings were banned altogether.

 

I know that the number of people who vote in off-season elections is small and that sometimes minority views become law because of voter apathy. But, however it came to pass. this law will send a message that at least some of the people of Alaska don't want cruise passengers to come, and that the "silent majority" didn't care enough to stop them.

[dawnsb]

I have not read all the respones to this topic. I voted 'It doesn't matter either way'.

 

We just traveled to Alaska for the first time in June. We had a wonderful time in our rental car driving around for 9 days then boarding a cruise ship heading south. I was slightly disappointed in the cruise portion even though we took independent tours that got us away from the port area. I will return to Alaska, but next time I will probably only tour the interior. I may return to some of the ports that the cruise stopped, but it will be by plane or ferry. I suppose what shocked me the most was that Ketchikan was promoted as a Caribbean shopping port in Alaska, and yes it was. I don't go on a cruise to buy as much duty free items as I can; I go on a cruise to test out places that I am possibly going to return on my own. That way if I don't like the port I can retreat to the ship and know I'll be happy instead of miserable for a week in a hotel room.

 

Dawn

[Thanz]

Alaska cruises already overpriced, and now with the new tax it will be outrageously expensive. I hope Princess, HAL, and the other big Alaska lines will move a few ships out of Alaska next summer.

 

Then lets see how the Juneau and Skagway voters feel about cruise passengers. A 20% drop in passengers would put those cities into recession!

 

I will certainly be avoiding Alaska from here on out. It isn't the $50 bucks but rather why go somewhere I'm not welcome?

There is no way that there will be a 20% drop in passengers - the cruise companies won't allow it. If the tax is driving away passengers, the cruise companies will drop fares so that they sail with as close to full ships as possible. The only way that passengers could drop is if the cruise lines pulled whole ships out of the region for the season - but as you say, those cruises still attract high fares and make more money for the cruise company.

[james j feller]

Come on people you know darn well that $50 is not going to break anybody, if you can afford a cruise you can afford $50 more.

 

You wouldn't think twice about it if the cruise lines raised the price of the cruise or if they hid it somewhere in the items on the ship.

 

Also if you gamble you don't think twice about gambling $50 more.

 

You go out to eat and the food costs more again you just pay.

 

JIM

[DNCButler]

Here...I just priced out a Princess Cruise for next summer to Alaska. JUST THE PORT CHARGES AND TAXES are $246.67 per person. For a family of 4 they are already paying $986.68 just for port charges, taxes and fees. Now add another $200 on to that. If we are already paying that much for the port charges, where is this money going? Why another tax on top of what is already there? I loved Alaska but this is going to affect a lot of people who were already stretched for their cruise. I don't like it when people say stay home then, why? Is Alaska only for the rich? Please! I have customers who have saved up for years to take this trip and now are going to have to come up with even more now with airline prices rising and new taxes being added.

[Mildred]

It is not just the additional $50 per person. How is the cruiseline going to make up the 33% of the casino revenue and the corporate taxes that they are now required to pay to Alaska?

 

Logic tells me that the cost is going to far exceed the $50 per person when all the costs are passed on to the consumer.

[cygnets]

The $50 per person is fine, it would not affect the way I cruise or spend onshore. But the rest of that bill will affect the Alaska cruise experience for a lot of people.

 

I am wondering how much the price of the cruise will have to increase to meet the requirements of this new bill. The corporate tax, casino tax and other taxes/fees will have to be paid by the cruise line. The cruise industry is a business and profits are what they need to meet their shareholders expectations. They will be passing these other taxes and fees to the passengers and if the passengers don't like the new increased price of cruising, there will be fewer cruise lines in Alaska. This will make cruising Alaska a 'once in a lifetime' type cruise with very few repeat customers and make enviromentalists happy.

 

 

I don't get the $4 monitor fee that comes from the $50 tax per passenger. Is there more than 1 monitor on the ship? If you have 2000 passengers on a 7 day cruise thats $8000 a week. A little steep for a salaried employee even with benefits. Is this fee covering their salary to sit around and watch the ice the other 6-7 months the cruise ships are not in Alaska.