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

[JAM810]

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).

 

Mike -- I'm kind of on the same page with you. In light and jest of this matter, maybe this extra tax is going to pay for the funerals of all the whales the cruise ships hit each year (i.e. Celebrity Summit this week)? Have the conservationalist pressured lawyers to get extra money for this effort?

 

Seriously .... I'm just curious as to where all this money will go. The head tax, the corporate charges and the casino 33% tax, plus a few other tax items that weren't totally spelled out. On a previous post, someone said maybe after time they'll drop the tax; yeah right, don't count on that. Once that money starts coming in, the govt. will find a way to spend it and never be "right" without it. So don't hold your breath.

 

I'm anxious to hear how this all pans out and will continue to watch the polls and news for results. Happy sailing!!!! :)

[Cruisingbear]

Well, the way I look at it, Alaska is biting the hand that feeds it.!!!

Alaska along with all cruise ports makes a lot of money from cruise

ship passengers. I guess if I really wanted to cruise to Alaska,

a $50.00 tax would not stop me, however, I would be less likely

to spend more while in the ports. I feel Alaska is being a bit greedy.

I for one do not feel the whole fee will go for preservation. By the

time the state government gets ahold of it, very little will be used

to protect the enviroment. What a shame! I hope the Caribbean

doesn't do this!!

[duke052]

Everyone needs to read the whole measure that was voted on. It is not only about a $50 tax per passenger.

The other areas are a higher corp tax on the cruise line. Who do you think will be paying for that. Also includes a portion of the ships casino revenue.

This bill should of never of been approved by state. Every cruise line should pull out of Alaska till they wake up.

[sea-jay]

How are the Alaskan Politicians portraying the usage of this additional money? Here in Florida, they promised that a certain percentage would go toward education in order to get the state lottery provisions passed. They kept their word. However, what they didn't tell us was that for every dollar the lottery contributed to education, that meant a dollar of our tax money (that used to go to education) was re-allocated to other uses. In other words, we were snookered by the politicians in our state.

 

For all you Alaska voters, watch out. These people are really slick!!!:mad:

[FLACRUISER99]

Take a Look at my cruise history - Coral Princess SB Alaska 6/18/05.Island Princess North Bound Alaska 5/15/06 Wonderful state. But with the new tax I can guarantee that you wont see me in 2007. IMO A lot of Alaskans are greedy and are biting the hand that feeds them. No thanks there are plenty of places in the world to spend my money that the people will appreciate it.

[seamama1]

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?

 

IMO, that is one reason for the increase. They won't cry the blues if a few ships pull out. Too many mega ships cruise the Alaska itineraries....on some days it's like driving a freeway. I think they want some of the ships to stop sailing.

 

My brother lives in Sitka and has for over 40 years. Most people DO NOT like the ships that come in there one after the other. Fouls the air, the water, chases away the wildlife, kills or injures sea life, litters up the streets. He said people didn't mind when it was just a few, smaller ships but it is out of hand. He says there is a movement by Alaskans to have their government more tightly control the ships in and out of their waters...similar to what Bermuda does.

 

Juneau and Skagway won't miss the ships. They got along quite well with only a few. They have enough of other resources. Cruise revenue is merely icing on the (oil and tourism) cake. He said many would like to see it become an exotic cruise on smaller ships...and so regulate the numbers. Higher prices would mean fewer people, less ships, better environment.

[seamama1]

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.

 

That makes no sense. Why would you pay more for a cruise to go to Alaska if you have no intention of actually seeing anything. If this were your intention then it would be cheaper to cruise Caribbean or Mexico and not see anything.

 

An idle threat!

[seamama1]

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.

 

This is an excellent plan. Are you aware that such a policy in is effect for most of the Caribbean also??? Helps keep the cruise lines honest.....

 

If a cruise ship is befouling the water, leaking oil, tossing garbage overboard, they should be ratted out and sued.....

[pierces]

Another tax....fine, whatever! Add it to the list. When volume was low, Alaska used to be a lot more expensive than other destinations and this will just put it back up there.

 

Will the money be used to "protect the environment"?

 

Probably not. The clause for improving ports sounds like it will be spent blasting into the sides of the fjords and pouring more concrete for dock space. The only way the environment will get a break is if they bite the cruise lines hard enough to make them pull out some of the ships...which may very well happen.

 

Will an additional $100 (plus increased fares to make up for casino earnings and new corporate taxes) make a big enough difference in our cruise budget to cause us to stay away? Not really. Alaska is beautiful and I have a camera. However, the mind set that sees tourists as a big, swollen udder ripe for milking will have it's effect and may, at least, alter our spending habits in the ports. We still cruise because we love to cruise, but more and more we just take a tour or walkabout for photo-ops without buying any of the tourist crap at the now-mandatory shopping stops. The government will mine the gold from the visitors, the shopkeepers will get stuck with the shaft.

 

Remember when you could buy electronics and such in the Caribbean for less than you could locally? Remember when you could buy a blanket in Mexico that wasn't made in China and a Corona cost you 75¢ or a dollar at a bar...just like the locals paid? Remember when you could buy a piece of art from a gallery in Ketchikan and it wasn't drop-shipped to your home from San Jose, CA?

 

The Caribbean...Mexico...now Alaska.

 

Here's hoping they never decide to copyright the scenery and demand a royalty...or put a Diamond's International in Hoonah! :eek:

 

(Probably shouldn't have said that...that Senator with the "Bridge to Nowhere" might get ideas!)

 

Dave

[duckman715]

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

 

Actually Jim it will make the difference in our case. We plan and budget well in advance for our cruise vacation. I'm sure this will come as a shock to some such as yourself and a few who voted for this measure, but not all who cruise are retired and independently wealthy. First we have to get to Alaska. You might not have noticed that air fares are also going up Jim, but they are. We live on the East Coast and just getting to the port city for an Alaskan cruise is not cheap. Then there is the hotel bill for the night before departure and possibly the return day. There are meals for these stays as well.

In summary, by the time the cruise lines get through passing through all of the new charges stemming from this act it will most likely be cheaper for us on the East Coast to cruise to Scandanavia than Alaska. I'm fine with that too. As previously stated, I'm okay if Alaska or any other state wishes to pass whatever revenue measures they feel are in their best interest. Those affected by these measures will respond in accordance with what is in their best interest as well. Just be aware Jim that at some point there is a price point which for some of us cannot be exceeded. That point has now been reached for any future Alaska cruises for us.

See you in Oslo.

[bluebreeze]

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.

 

Many places impose hospitality taxes etc....but that is taxes on services rendered, not a tax to enter the state. Last time I checked Florida didn't charge you to enter the state, lol.....as does no other state. Alaska should be happy to have all the tourists there buying products, tours etc...if they need the money that bad then a tourist tax on goods/services rendered would have been the way to go, not just a tax on cruise ships!

[sjbdtz]

I'll pay the tax...but I'll be certain to ensure that I spend that much less in-port (including excursions...because they're paid to land-based operators).

[pierces]

... they should be ratted out and sued.....

 

*sigh*

 

Remember when Sue was a name and not a verb...?

 

 

Dave

[moncrystal]

I wanted people to know Alaska is not "anti tourist". Most Alaskans will go out of their way to help tourists have the best time they can and answer all the questions they can ("You don't take a dog sled to work and live in igloo?" type =) ). I can see the point that some make that $50 can add up pretty quickly if you are travelling with a family of 4 or a bigger group. However, I have seen many people onboard ships spend $50+ in 30 minutes on drinks and dump hundreds of dollars into the slot machines in the casino. I hope $50 does not keep people away from a great state (and even better food!).

[doittoit]

A group of us are/where going to do a 14 day trip. I was one of the few that was on the fence due to the cost, I'm retired and on a fixed income, and saving up to go in 2008, I just fell of the fence. Now I won't have to save up that much and will be able to go much sooner. I'll go somewhere else, I try not to go somewhere that people are greedy. If you think the money will go to improve things, I got a bridge you might be interested in. Very reasonable! I know several people that get Money from the surplus oil. Let them use that. To those people in Alaska I won't meet, I'll be in the Caribbean spending that $50, and my spouse will be there also.

[wolfie11]

Alaska should be happy to have all the tourists there buying products, tours etc...

 

That is exactly why this tax was proposed. Alaska doesn't see very much of the money the cruise ship passengers spend. In fact, the cruise ship companies would be delighted if tourists never spent a dime on the Alaska economy. They are doing their best to ensure that passengers ride company-owned transportation, stay in company-owned hotels, take company-owned or contracted shore excursions, and shop at company-owned or contracted stores. Only a small fraction of the people who work in those stores or on shore excursions are from Alaska. All other gambling operations in the state, including charities pay the 33% tax. Other companies who do business in the state pay corporate taxes. The cruise lines have managed to avoid paying for the impacts they are causing until now.

 

As I stated in another post, cruise ship fares have nothing to do with the actual costs of the cruise - they are based on supply and demand. If the demand goes down, so will fares. In 2002, Alaskans were taking their vacations by cruising to the Lower 48 because it was cheaper than buying a plane ticket and staying in a hotel (as little as $400 per person) because bookings were way down in the months following 9/11 and the cruise lines (who were building new ships left and right) had to fill the ships. Now demand is up and those same rooms are running $800 per person. The cruise lines will charge whatever they think the market will bear.

[doittoit]

I wanted people to know Alaska is not "anti tourist". Most Alaskans will go out of their way to help tourists have the best time they can and answer all the questions they can ("You don't take a dog sled to work and live in igloo?" type =) ). I can see the point that some make that $50 can add up pretty quickly if you are travelling with a family of 4 or a bigger group. However, I have seen many people onboard ships spend $50+ in 30 minutes on drinks and dump hundreds of dollars into the slot machines in the casino. I hope $50 does not keep people away from a great state (and even better food!).

$50 is a lot to some people on fixed incomes the cruises are already very high for that part of the world. When u have to save to take one there it's another month or two of savings, it also cuts into a shore trip. And no I don't gamble or stay drunk with those expensive drinks.

[StillLooking4Adventure]

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 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

 

Obviously I don't mean that they are not welcome if they dont plan to shop or go on excursions. If you read this board a lot you will see Budget Queen always recomend to save up enough to have for excursions or you will miss the best parts of the cruise. If you have been many times and just like to wander the streets I can understand that, but it wouldnt make the best experience for a first time cruiser and I would suggest rethinking that plan.

 

If taxes are necessary to preserve the Alaskan wilderness, why does this bill single out cruise lines and its passengers? Why did the people of Alaska get to vote on it, unless it were a thinly veiled referendum on cruising itself?

 

It is targeted at Cruise lines, not passengers, although the cruise line may pass this tax on. There had been previous attempts to get the Cruise lines thru negotiation to do a better job with environmental concerns. They would not discuss it. This was put on the ballot by pettition started by concerned environmentalists who wanted Cruise lines to pay their fair share.

 

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?

No, but I'm sure it covers supervisors, paperwork etc, and it wont be a year round job.

[StillLooking4Adventure]

There is an interesting article in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinal today written by Thom Stieghorst. Here is the link:

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/sfl-zalaska24aug24,0,5584586.story

 

In he quoted some travel agents saying it would may discourage a certain number of people but that for those that want the adventure wil pay it.

 

He mentions that in wil cost Carnival 75 mil and RCL 21 mil "assuming they abosorb the cost" (fat chance)

He says current avg government taxes and fees in the Carribean are $50 on a seven night cruise. (sounds familiar)

But I find it most interesting that the day after a cruise ship arrived with the remains of a dead humback pinned to it the Juneau Empire newspaper came out for the bill callling it "a bill whos time has come"

 

In conclusion, for me at least since I think I've said enough, I don't think the overall affect of the tax itself will be that much. Most of the 950,000 Alaskan cruisers don't read this board and will be unaware of the new tax. They of course will look at the bottom line costs involved and decide to go or not. If this means less ships and less people for awhile, so be it. I am a big proponent of Indepnedent land tours. I would hope as an alternative some people would consider just flying into Anchorage, rent a car or RV and spend a week or two driving around the state and exploring. It is wonderful and a lot cheaper than a cruise. Just know this, most Alaskans I know have no problem with tourists. Most of their relatives become Alaskan tourists. This wasn't an anti-tourist tax, it was a pro-environment anti Cruise Line tax.

Good Day :-)

[moncrystal]

doittoit, I understand and agree with you that $50 is A LOT of money and that having to save a month or two is tough. My wife and I had to save for a year and a half to take a honeymoon 3 day cruise to Nassau (4a cabin, no excursions, very little spent aboard/ on shore since we didn't have a lot of money), since we were college kids on a very tight budget. We had to save for almost 2 years to take our second cruise, still in school (and eating a lot of pasta and rice because we were hooked on cruising after the first one and really wanted to take another cruise). My point was that many people spend well more than $50 at certain settings aboard ships (bar, casino, spa) and not even notice it (I am not one of them, i check my sail and sign twice a day). I am sorry that you and your group will not being going to Alaska and I hope you enjoy were ever you go.

[fleeflicker]

I have a cruise booked for may of 07. I have already paid my cruise in full, do you think princess will send me a letter in the mail, asking for hte 50 a person?

[horseymike]

everyone has a choice in this matter. just don't book a cruise to alaska.there are other places to cruise to.maybe after a major loss of revenue, the people who voted for this tax just may see things from a different prospective:(

[Traveler88]

I certainly do not blame Alaskans for wishing the Cruise Industry to pay it's own way...we have made several cruises through SouthEast Alaska and did notice that the ships were stocked in Vancouver,Canada with enough goods to make a round trip and nothing of any amount was purchased in Alaska...also, the ships had their own souvenir shops to sell Alaskan trinkets. The cruise lines even had their own buses and hotels so that Alaskans even were cut out of that business as well. I did not meet even one Alaskan (or even an American) working on the ships so Alaskans were effectively cut out of that employment as well from these mostly foreign owned cruise companies who paid no income taxes whatsoever to Alaska. In all but two communities, dock and harbor maintenance has been carried by Alaskans exclusively and largely covered by local property taxes...not by the cruise industry at all. The people of Alaska have largely received little benefit from these cruisers, of course some souvenirs are sold by land based shops and a good share of these shops are owned or controlled by the cruise lines and the activities onshore largely are required to kick back to the cruise lines for a percentage of any monies spent by passengers. So, I believe Alaska is doing the right thing by making these highly profitable, foreign corporate giants pay their own way. It does cost a lot of money to police these polluting behemoths......

[ARRTrain]

Oh, come on. All the gift shops in Alaska are not owned by the cruise companies.

 

Princess is on the top 100 employers for the State of Alaska, twice, 1 for its Hotels and 1 for it Bus Drivers. Most of those people live here in Alaska.

 

The cruise companies don't own the hotels in Anchorage, where most of its passengers spent the night. Those hotels inturn employ Alaskans to work there.

 

The last thing Alaska needed was more taxes for people visiting here.

[seamama1]

*sigh*

 

Remember when Sue was a name and not a verb...?

 

 

Dave

 

Yeah I do. Are you old enough to remember when all the cruise ships in the Caribbean would throw their trash and garbage overboard, drain the bilge and foul the water? Then the island coalitions started forming and began imposing fines on ships that were caught doing this. Many of the major cruise lines came up with an alternative but some - including a few of the well-know lines, continued - sneakily dumping in the middle of the night so they would be harder to see.

 

The coalition came out with the "whistle blower" idea that if anyone saw this happening and could prove it - mostly by photographs - that person would share in the fine imposed.

 

It didn't take the cruise lines long to realize that everybody was now watching and they eventually fell in line.

 

So yeah, if they do it and get caught, fines apply.... If they don't pay the fines, then they will get sued.