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

[mbisson]

[quote name='sea_u_onboard']That comment was directed at vozzie.[/QUOTE]

My apologizes.

-Monte

[susieque1]

Fellow Cruisers, you already pay a PORT TAX that is supposed to accomplish the same agenda. This new tax is $50 per person TODAY. How will you feel when it is imposed in EACH port and the cost is increased each year? Alaska's economy needs tourists. These are the same tourists who have spent millions of dollars in Alaska over the last many years and their reward is a new tax that will do nothing to improve the environment, the ports, or the local economies. Add insult to injury by taxing casino profits and you have a simple greed factor at play - nothing more. There are no bargains to be had in Alaska. I for one will look for alternative ports where the locals appreciate my business.

[sea_u_onboard]

I think they went too far when they asked for a cut of the casino profits.

AS far as the cruiselines having to report their cut of excursions - sure it would be great to know - but if you owned a business would you want to have to disclose how much you profit from the resale of each sale.

[clyde3]

Does anyone know when this tax will go into effect?

[Yukon]

[quote name='clyde3']Does anyone know when this tax will go into effect?[/QUOTE]

It won't be quickly, that's for sure. If it gets past the inevitable court challenges, the legislators may well gut it due to the big-bucks lobbying. It may be in place for the 2007 season....

Murray

[mbisson]

[quote name='sea_u_onboard']I think they went too far when they asked for a cut of the casino profits.
.[/QUOTE]

And since the profits would be based on gambling while in Alaska waters, I can see a possibility that some ships might dash out into international waters rather than sailing more of the passage (in order to avoid the tax) once they leave a port.

-Monte

[kruisecat]

I have a dumb question. Are the casinos open while in port? I know in the Carrib they are not. If they are not, on what grounds does the state feel they deserve a cut? Purely on the fact that they are in "Alaskan Waters" I guess I thought the waters were US territory and not specific to one state or another.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the $50 but the other stipulations of the law will really impact costs. And I do believe that it is a matter of principal, if the state wants to restrict the number of ships to protect the environment that's one thing, but this seems to me to be a "have your cake and eat it too" scenario.

Just my 2 cents

[mbisson]

[quote name='kruisecat']I have a dumb question. Are the casinos open while in port? I know in the Carrib they are not. [/QUOTE]

IMO-not a dumb question. On my previous Alaska cruises, the casinos have been closed while in port. I couldn't swear this is by law, but I would assume that if the cruise lines "could" keep them open, they would.

jmo
-Monte

[rgagnon2]

I was planning an Alaska cruise for 2007. Changing my plans.

NO WAY am I going to pay any more

[vozzie]

[quote name='yoeddy1'] I would only expect to pay these fees if i were to visit your country ... I will look into your fees ... and I dont think I'm that far off base ..$50.00 when it costs $20,000 for your vaca ....hmm[/quote]
Yoeddy1, it's not the amount, it's the principal.

A specific TAX on a cruise passenger is saying to me ... "we don't want you to come here, but if you insist, we're gunna squeeze whatever we can out of you"

And yes, my country charges plenty of taxes ... but it's done covertly, so as not to attract too much attention. Port charges, departure taxes, fuel levies etc (and by the way, we are already paying heaps of taxes to cruise Alaska and do the land tour ... bed taxes, port charges etc).

Perhaps a better way for them to have successfully increased tax revenue would have been to increase existing taxes. We would have grumbled for a while and then got on with it. But this tax is a personal attack on specific visitors.

And as we say in Australia ... "that cheezes me off!"

[kennicott]

[quote name='denali1']I have a little more info to pass on from here in Alaska.
Today I was told that the cruise port towns voted overwhelmingly against the measure. As I suspected, it was voters living in outlying areas that voted yes.
.[/QUOTE]

Don’t know where they got those numbers. For the heck of it, I just ran a tally on a whole slew of House Districts. It is just the opposite. With the exception of Ketchikan, the cruise port districts went overwhelmingly in favor. While the Valley and Fairbanks were opposed. Interesting, Anchorage generally favored it including the conservative districts.

[Beach4me]

[quote name='seamama1'][B]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. [/B][/quote]

If only! I would love to see the number of ships/passengers decrease. I have cruised Alaska once - 26 years ago. I was on the original Sun Princess. We were the only ship in port each day. It was wonderful.

I am booked on the Carnival Spirit next July. I can't wait for this cruise...but I'm also hoping that I won't be heartbroken by "progress". When I was in Alaska all those years ago, there weren't any chain stores - certainly no jewelry stores like in the Caribbean - and it was a peaceful place. I booked the Spirit because it is a smaller ship. And, I'm crossing my fingers that cruisecal is correct and on our most crowded port day, we are one of 3 ships in.

We recently came across our records from that cruise and we paid almost as much for that one as we are for this one. In 1980 dollars, that is a significant amount more than what this one is costing. And, it was worth every penny.

Having said all of that, I realize that I am one of the lucky folks who can afford the price of higher cost cruises. And, I am willing to pay for a less crowded experience. If the result of the new tax is that there are fewer ships sailling Alaska, I am all for it. It will actually make me more likely to take Alaskan cruises on a regular basis going forward.

[MaggieSweet]

What might be really useful is to make a list of all the major cruise ports in the world and what their individuals taxes are. I've tried to find it and failed. There are plenty of ports that charges a LOT more in taxes than the state of Alaska. Have you priced a South Pacific cruise lately? My friends in Australia say that it is cheaper to fly to the U.S. and take a cruise than it is to take a cruise that they can drive to.

You will not make a point with the State of Alaska by either not cruising there or by not stepping off the ship. Not visiting this incredible state will be only your loss.

Tammy

[mbisson]

[quote name='MaggieSweet']My friends in Australia say that it is cheaper to fly to the U.S. and take a cruise than it is to take a cruise that they can drive to.
Tammy[/QUOTE]

Sort of like it is for me to drive to Seattle to catch an Alaska cruise or fly to Miami to cruise the Caribbean. Actually the last 2 Miami cruises were with balconies and both were cheaper than my upcoming interior cabin on an Alaska cruise.

-Monte

[denali1]

[quote name='kennicott']Don’t know where they got those numbers. For the heck of it, I just ran a tally on a whole slew of House Districts. It is just the opposite. With the exception of Ketchikan, the cruise port districts went overwhelmingly in favor. While the Valley and Fairbanks were opposed. Interesting, Anchorage generally favored it including the conservative districts.[/quote]

kennicott,
I was told by my boss about the numbers. He knows someone with Princess I believe, who told him that the cruise port voters were against the measure. He said indeed Anchorage favored it as did Kenai Peninsula in most areas.
However, you checked the actual vote totals, so the info I got is certainly questionable now. Thanks for the info.

[denali1]

[quote name='pat54']Denali1,
The Measure 2 is unconstitutional, the US State department will file suite. The Federal Judge in Juneau will throw it out. This whole conversation is a moot point.
However, in one of your posts on this subject you stated that your tourism taxes were low compared to the lower 48. I just returned last night from Anchorage. My hotel tax was 12%, and my car rental tax was 33%! In addition, I realize that while I am in Anchorage I do not have to pay sales tax, just like when you are in Seattle, you can show your Alaska drivers license and avoid Washington State Sales Tax. I wish I could be sales tax exempt in Kenai, or Juneau by simply showing my Washington drivers license.
Lastly, Juneau better not support tourism taxes, after your new Governor Sarah moves the capitol buildings to the Valley, the folks in Juneau will have nothing but tourism.[/quote]

pat54,
I think our tourism taxes [B]are[/B] cheaper than lots of places we visit.
I mentioned in one of my posts that we had the usual high hotel and car rental taxes that most cities have. But.......we have no sales tax in most communities, including Anchorage. Our fuel taxes are close to the cheapest in America.
I am shocked at places we travel to when I hear the sales tax on my purchase, often over 7 or 8 %. Our hotel tax was raised last year to help fund a new convention center.
We have thousands from the Lower 48 who come here and work in oil, fishing or tourism. They are charged no income tax, and they pay no sales taxes while here. Then they leave, after using our roads, infrastucture, etc. It doesn't bother me, but it does irritate a lot of residents.
I agree, Washington gives us a break on sales tax. Alaska should do the same for Washington residents visiting here.
Doubtful Governor Sarah, should she be elected gets anywhere with a Capital move. They have been messing with that idea for almost 30 years, and nothing has happened. In fact, I believe voters have passed the move twice, but legislature or courts stopped it.
For those who won't cruise here now that this measure has passed, I should tell you that I would be shocked if this measure passes a court test. And a court test will come. Expect the cruise lines to come out with all guns ablaze. Wouldn't surprise me if they ask for and receive a court order to delay this whole thing.

If that happens, the taxes will be put on hold, and I am thinking that 2007 might actually be a good time to cruise here.

[yoeddy1]

[quote name='mbisson']Where did you get the idea I CAN AFFORD a $20,000 vacation? And even if I could, does that mean I should spend $20,050 instead? (plus whatever the other items in the bill end up adding to the price of a cruise)

-Monte[/quote]

read back on the blogs and you will see ....

[kennicott]

[quote name='denali1']pat54,
Doubtful Governor Sarah, should she be elected gets anywhere with a Capital move. They have been messing with that idea for almost 30 years, and nothing has happened. In fact, I believe voters have passed the move twice, but legislature or courts stopped it.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t blame folks for being confused over the capital move issue because you never find an objective review of its history. All news media accounts you find are distorted because they have a bias one way or another. However, Alaskan’s have never voted to move the capital. Right out of the starting blocks in the early 1960s, in our new state, a movement began to relocate the capital. We voted twice in those years and overwhelmingly voted not to move it. The prevailing arguments as to why it failed were that #1 Anchorage wanted it all (where it would actually go was never defined in the first two votes) and #2 there was no cost analysis.

So, a new effort was put forth starting in about 1973. Proponents of the move convinced the legislature to put on the ballot a proposal to have a committee select three sites for a future capital. Once those were selected then the public would vote on a favorite. After that, then a committee would cost out the move. After that, the public would vote again on whether or not to move it based up their knowledge as to how much it would cost and exactly where it would go. The proposal passed and a site east of Willow won out of the three selected. So the committee came up with the cost and the package was put forth. Once again the public overwhelmingly voted a move down (that vote was taken around 1976 I think).

So, never say die, then the argument became one where proponents said the cost estimate was inflated. So we voted again (I forget which year). Once again, it was defeated, big time.

Now the propaganda machine says we the people have voted to move it many times. What a crock.

Four votes, four failures. By the way, Palin says she does not support a capital move.

[jd10367]

This was brought up on another posting board... Is it a $50/pp ONE time tax or is it EVERY port you go to? And, when will it take effect? We are from the east coast and cruising to Alaska is expensive for us anyway. Flying all the way out there is expensive. To me there really isn't a comparison to Alaska to the Caribbean, of course the Caribbean is cheaper. Next year we are going to the Med on RCCL and THATS even cheaper with air then this cruise we are taking to Alaska in 11 days. If its just 50/pp ONE time then its not that big of a deal. And, no i am not Rockefeller.

[denali1]

[quote name='jd10367']This was brought up on another posting board... Is it a $50/pp ONE time tax or is it EVERY port you go to? And, when will it take effect? We are from the east coast and cruising to Alaska is expensive for us anyway. Flying all the way out there is expensive. To me there really isn't a comparison to Alaska to the Caribbean, of course the Caribbean is cheaper. Next year we are going to the Med on RCCL and THATS even cheaper with air then this cruise we are taking to Alaska in 11 days. If its just 50/pp ONE time then its not that big of a deal. And, no i am not Rockefeller.[/quote]

The tax is not per port. It is $50 per person, per cruise.

[MaggieSweet]

[quote name='Gone Cruising']Hmmm......?

7 Night Caribbean Cruise in 2007 for two - [COLOR=red]$ 1,600.00 balcony[/COLOR]
7 night Second Cruise to Caribbean in 2007 for two - [COLOR=red]$ 1,600.00 balcony[/COLOR]

OR

7 night Alaskan Cruise in 2007 for two - [COLOR=red]$ 3,200 balcony[/COLOR]..... for now......


Decisions,decisions...... it'll be a tough one :D[/QUOTE]

First of all, although many people go to both the Caribbean and Alaska in their cruising lifetimes, in general they are marketing to different groups. My cruise to Alaska on the Sapphire Princess in a balcony cabin was $2000 for two. I find it hard to believe that the cost has nearly doubled. My cruise THIS year is more expensive because we have a suite, but otherwise I wonder where your numbers are coming from.

Tammy

[skittlekitty]

We just went on an Alaska cruise in June. I completely understand why the state needs funds from passengers to help cover the upkeep of ports and protection of waterways. Doesn't everyone realize that these cruise ships are registered in countries other than the US to avoid the very supervision this Alaska tax will partially fund (in part to protect US WATERWAYS!)?
I think $50 is a bit higher than necessary for this and I feel the taxation of the casinos is better (tax actually borne by the cruise ships which I'm quite certain make a killing on this).
I highly doubt that most Alaska cruise passengers spend enough money in a ports' LOCALLY-OWNED shops (not the one's run by cruise lines, i.e. the ones your on-board 'shopping assistant' recommends) for those municipalities to maintain all the services utilized by the passengers over the course of a season. This tax will help the towns.
Do those of you grousing about this also complain to hotel companies and car rental agencies when prices at those locations are taxed at 10-20% so the locals can make more money off you rather than the local government raising residents' property or sales taxes? I bet you don't.
I take it back--$50 is very reasonable, particularly when you look at the cruise ships' bottom line. If you don't think another $50 is deserved to see (and maintain) the beauty of Alaska, then DON'T GO.

[MaggieSweet]

Skittlekitty, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Tammy

[GUY FROM PA]

We probably already pay a similar tax on other cruises except that it is already included in the port fees. etc. They should have not been so obvious about it. I don't think most people are so much disturbed about the $50.00 fee but the principle of the matter. It's the same as everywhere else we get nickled & dimed to death and people are tired of it. Unfortunately the tax will go to balance the state budget and not get used as it should.

[spongerob]

[quote name='skittlekitty']I completely understand why the state needs funds from passengers to help cover the upkeep of ports and protection of waterways. Doesn't everyone realize that these cruise ships are registered in countries other than the US to avoid the very supervision this Alaska tax will partially fund (in part to protect US WATERWAYS!)?[/quote]Any ship sailing in Inside Passage waters will already have a pilot on board, who is a state employee. The owners of these ships also know they are being watched like hawks, and I think their record is exemplary.

[quote]I think $50 is a bit higher than necessary for this and I feel the taxation of the casinos is better (tax actually borne by the cruise ships which I'm quite certain make a killing on this). [/quote]No tax is ever borne by corporations. If they lose $100K per cruise due to taxes, then $100K per cruise will be made up by increased fees. Why not tax all the food, or cocktails, or charge those who bring their own alcohol on board an excise tax?

[quote]$50 is very reasonable, particularly when you look at the cruise ships' bottom line. If you don't think another $50 is deserved to see (and maintain) the beauty of Alaska, then DON'T GO.[/quote]You just don't get it, do you? Every one of the fees and charges will be paid by passengers. I have yet to see any tax/fee/lottery/scheme proposed by politicians or special interests actually achieve their intended goals, and ends up lining the pockets of those who think up this type of BS.