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

[DarkNStormy720]

I think Alaska's gonna hurt itself in the long run. I see thier also taking more taxes from shore excursions and from gambling from the cruise ships then they already do now. So the state is getting $50 per person but thier also getting increased revenue from the cruise ships. Now that Alaska's approved this tax, what's it from stopping other states from implementing a tax on cruise passengers? Maybe the other states which have cruise ship terminals should charge Alaska residents a tax for using thier ports and piers. I mean really it's only fair. What meakes Alaska so special that they can do this? I'll stick to the Caribbean Thank You.

[vozzie]

[quote name='skittlekitty']
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.
[/quote]

Skittlekitty,

Here's another way to look at it:

I arrive in Skagway. My wife and I now have $100 less in our pockets to spend. I now have the choice of spending what's left at a locally-owned shop (that voted to charge me $50 for coming) or spending it at a "cruise-owned" shop (who put advertising money up front to try and stop the tax ...for whatever motives). Which shop will I go into?

[kennicott]

[quote name='spongerob']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]

Marine pilots are not generally employed by the state. The only exception I know of is those who work for the Alaska Marine Highway System. A few others have employers such as tugboat concerns. Most pilots are independent contractors working through an association for billing and dispatch. These pilots are a unified entity dealing with marine enterprises and under the regulatory auspices of state and federal agencies. There are 4 marine pilots associations in the state. This is a very closed shop environment and all pilots regardless of employment belong to these associations. In addition, all pilots are heavily regulated and licensed by the US Coast Guard and the State of Alaska. The majority of these pilots are not employees requiring oversight by an employer.

[ARRTrain]

I know the State of Alaska didn't dream up this idea of the Head Tax, but it is interesting that all the laws, regs, and taxes are for ships that are bigger than the State of Alaska's own ferries. Wonder if the State Ferries traveling from Washington State have to pay these Head Taxes? The State Ferries don't have to comply with the Clean Water Act, like the cruise ships do.

[Yukon]

[quote name='vozzie']I arrive in Skagway. My wife and I now have $100 less in our pockets to spend. I now have the choice of spending what's left at a locally-owned shop (that voted to charge me $50 for coming) or spending it at a "cruise-owned" shop (who put advertising money up front to try and stop the tax ...for whatever motives). Which shop will I go into?[/QUOTE]

All those same shops can be found in the Caribbean. So if that's your attitude, go there instead.

[kennicott]

[quote name='ARRTrain']but it is interesting that all the laws, regs, and taxes are for ships that are bigger than the State of Alaska's own ferries. Wonder if the State Ferries traveling from Washington State have to pay these Head Taxes? The State Ferries don't have to comply with the Clean Water Act, like the cruise ships do.[/QUOTE]

You state: ALL laws, regs, and taxes are for ships that are bigger than Alaska's own ferries. Are you certain? I bet not. You wonder if Alaska Marine Highway passengers have to pay these head taxes? Are you speaking in jest? Every passenger and vehicle on the Alaska Marine Highway system has been heavily subsidized by the State of Alaska since day one. This service has been a big lose from the day of its inception. Part of the rationale for the marine highway system has always been to encourage visitors into Alaska and create equal transportation opportunity for the residents of the coastal communities to get out of their environments via vehicle access without having to relegate the state into providing expensive operational road networks in those areas. Do the state ferries have a free license to pollute waters? And if so have they ever been convicted of doing so? Come on man, give us some specifics.

As far as I'm concerned, we should limit the Alaska ferry system's most southern port to Prince Rupert BC. (Very near Ketchikan). Going on to Bellingham Washington is just an expensive luxury we can't afford.

[Gone Cruising]

[quote name='MaggieSweet']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[/QUOTE]
If your getting great deals let me know where? The cruises your taking in September shows starting balconies from $1,499 to $2,350 pp on several web sites.
Im not trying to compare Alaska to the Caribbean, im just trying to understand why it's more expensive to cruise there. I live between Seattle and Vancouver and it's cheaper to take two cruises in the Caribbean with airfare than one in Alaska and drive to the port.
But it all depends on what time of year you take them. To me a cruise is a cruise regardless of where you go. Im just happy to take any type of cruise! When an how many depends on the price and if you know where to get great deals, please let me know. Im still a newbee having started cruising in 2004 and scan as many websites each day for great deals!

[marty30907]

After reading the posts on this tread, I see that is about 50% both ways. I can see the points, pro and con for this tax. As for my DW and myself, we have not cruised in Alaska, but we do not like the idea of more government involvement in our lives. The state is aready getting port fees for each stop, we already paid taxes for the cruise. The state receives (i beleved) federal money to help in the conservation of their waterways now. Any purchases we make on shore is taxed and now we have to pay another $50 in taxes?

I think we will not be cruising in Alaska, which is a shame, was we were planning a 14 day cruise, both directions, as our retirement present to each other.

[skarletohara]

Well, this is the first I've heard of this since I haven't been on the alaska
boards for a while, but I can tell you, although we think Alaska is the
most beautiful place we've ever been to and had talked about going back as soon as we can, we can definitely skip it for all future
cruises since the imposition of this ridiculous bureaucratic tax of $50
pp, so if a family of 5 goes to Alaska on a cruise, now they must come up
with $250 additional???:eek: I don't think so.:mad: It's called gouging where I come from

And yes, less will go into the Alaskan shops because you have to cut corners somewhere .
We get plied with enough of this environmental tax crud down here in the
SF Bay Area, and do you think any of the taxes that are voted in for
the environment ever go where they're supposed to? Nooooooooooo.......
but we pay dearly for preserving this park and that refuge et. cet. et cet:rolleyes: when all it is is wasted money.

[ARRTrain]

From the State of Alaska DEC website:

[FONT=Times New Roman][LEFT][COLOR="black"]Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations” of the Miscellaneous
Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5666) on December 21, 2000 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2001 (P.L. 106-554) applies to large commercial passenger vessels only, which are defined as
those vessels having more than 500 passengers. Effluent standards are set for blackwater only.
Allows continuous discharge if secondary treatment standards are met and compliance is
demonstrated through semi-monthly sampling. Federal law closed former “donut holes”.
“Donut holes” were areas greater than three nautical miles from shore but within Alexander
Archipelago that in the past ships could discharge of raw sewage. The US Coast Guard enforces
this law. EPA is authorized to create additional standards at its discretion. EPA has begun the
process of evaluating current cruise ship wastewater discharge requirements in Alaska.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=royalblue]Looks like the State passes laws to exclude the State Ferries.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#4169e1][/COLOR] [/LEFT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][LEFT][COLOR="Black"]All large vessels under the federal program (500+ passengers) pay a third party sampler and
laboratory to take at least two samples per season. The U.S. Coast Guard requires large cruise
ships that have been certified for continuous discharge to sample twice per month. Small vessels
can use their crew members only after they prove to the DEC that their crew members have
appropriate background and training to perform wastewater sampling.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=royalblue]Looks like the State doesn't have anyone monitoring them, but the large ships have to pay someone to take samples.[/COLOR][/LEFT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

[kennicott]

Looks like the State passes laws to exclude the State Ferries.

 

 

The state law AS 46.03.460 – 46.03.490 (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgibin/

folioisa.dll/stattx04/query=*/doc/{@19481}?) effective July 1, 2001 and revised on July 8,

2004 applies to large (defined as 250+ passengers) as well as small passenger vessels (50 – 249

passengers), including some Alaska Marine Highway System vessels. Effluent limits were set

for both graywater and blackwater. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

(DEC) enforces this law and may create additional standards if science and technology warrant

through an additional regulatory process. Industry fees pay for the program.

The state law also addresses the offloading and/or disposal of nonhazardous solid wastes

(besides sewage) and hazardous wastes in Alaska. Vessel owner/operators are required to

annually submit a description of the vessel nonhazardous and hazardous waste handling

procedures and to report any deviations from the vessel plan to the DEC. The DEC will also get

copies of reports and notices submitted to Canadian or U.S. authorities when hazardous wastes

generated while in Alaska waters are offloaded elsewhere (e.g., Vancouver or Seattle).

The state law has drafted regulations as directed by the July 8, 2004 change in statute that dealt

with discharges from small passenger vessels.

[Midwest Mariner]

Isn't this "tax" for cruisers discriminating? They should be taxing "all" visitors/tourists if they are going administer a tax. Are they saying that it is only 'cruise tourists' that have an affect on the environment. I would convey this simple thought; a person driving into the state to partake of the beatuiful parks etc. would be carrying more potentially environmentally damaging materials than somewone taking an excursion tour from a cruise ship. Not to mention that the tour group is traveling in one vehicle versus multiple individual vehicles for the same amount of other tourists... more damaging exhaust etc. I don't condone any added expense but if they must they should spread the cost among all not just the Cruising population but all viaitors. And I also agree... what about the windfall profits of the oil companies whom have litered the landscape with miles and miles of pipelines which as we speak are corroding and exhibiting a petentially far greater environmental disaster.

[Midwest Mariner]

Isn't this "tax" for cruisers discriminating? They should be taxing "all" visitors/tourists if they are going administer a tax. Are they saying that it is only 'cruise tourists' that have an affect on the environment. I would convey this simple thought; a person driving into the state to partake of the beatuiful parks etc. would be carrying more potentially environmentally damaging materials than somewone taking an excursion tour from a cruise ship. Not to mention that the tour group is traveling in one vehicle versus multiple individual vehicles for the same amount of other tourists... more damaging exhaust etc. I don't condone any added expense but if they must they should spread the cost among all not just the Cruising population but all viaitors. And I also agree... what about the windfall profits of the oil companies whom have litered the landscape with miles and miles of pipelines which as we speak are corroding and exhibiting a potentially far greater environmental disaster.

[StillLooking4Adventure]

Isn't this "tax" for cruisers discriminating? They should be taxing "all" visitors/tourists if they are going administer a tax.

 

See below ( can't edit very well)

[StillLooking4Adventure]

Isn't this "tax" for cruisers discriminating? They should be taxing "all" visitors/tourists if they are going administer a tax.

 

You must understand that this was not meant to be a "tax on Cruisers or tourists". This is how the Cruise industry attacked the ballot measure. This was meant to tax the cruise lines. The way they did it was to come up with an amount per passenger. The cruise lines register out of country so they don't pay income tax, they pay no corporate tax, in Alaska they paid no or very little port taxes. They own their buses, their hotels, and their train cars. This was a way to get some money from the cruise lines to put back into ports and environmental protection. Whether it does that or not remains to be seen.

 

Many Carribean ports and European ports have port taxes per person. They don't tax "tourists" per se. In the past when individual Alaskan ports tried to put on port taxes the Cruise lines threatened to just go to a different port. Now they can't. I beleive this will show up on the ticket as a port tax just like many other cruises have.

[Yukon]

To add to what mkaplan said, HAL and Princess in particular (which are really the same company now) are getting very, very bad for keeping every possible cent to themselves, both on the ships and their cruisetours. Independent travellers (car and RV mostly), on the other hand, spend most of their money with locals. Having said that, I think that the sections of the bill beyond the tax (casino profit share, corporate taxes and commission information release) will be found to be discriminatory.

 

Murray

[AKRESIDENT]

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.

 

I've lived in Juneau for 15 years and am a downtown small business owner. During that time I have watched the number of passengers and the size of the ships explode. In general, most local residents in Juneau and SE Alaska would like nothing more than a reduction in the number of ships and passengers in our town. So, if $50 per cruiser achieves that end, so be it. You need to understand that the quality of the experience is diminished significantly for you the passengers (not to mention those of us that choose to live here) when there are ten thousand plus passengers and another five thousand plus crew dumped in port on a single day. You also need to understand just how little of the money you spend in port actually stays here in the Alaskan economy. Most of the "made in china" trinket shops and the twenty plus jewelry stores that we have in downtown Juneau are either owned by the cruiselines or other non-alaskan businesses. Additionally, many of the employees in these establishments are imported from outside as well. So as soon as the cruise season ends they board up the shops for the winter and the employees and the profits leave for the lower 48. This isn't to say cruising doesn't benefit the local economy, it does, but it does not contribute many of the higher paying jobs and year round employment that our local private businesses and government employment opportunities do. The biggest and only beneficiary from the bloated numbers of tourists is the cruiselines themselves and their corporate owned shoreside businesses. I voted for the tax, not because of the revenue that will be generated and then wasted by our local and state politicos (thats the same everywhere) but because I want a reduction in the number of cruise ships and tourists because it will be beneficial to locals, tourists and the whole Alaskan experience and environment.

Also as a side note regarding educating folks and dispelling some of the misconceptions about our state's oil revenues. Unlike most states, Our state constitution is written in such a way that we, the people of Alaska, own all of our natural resources. Oil, Timber, Gold ect. And, our constitution mandates that all of our resources must be managed to the maximum benefit of the people. In the case of oil, which is our largest source of revenue, we have royalties and taxes which are assesed on a per barrel basis. In essence we the people of Alaska sell our oil to BP, Conoco Philips etc. who are then responsible for extracting it. Of those revenues, twenty five percent is allocated to the Alaska Permanent Fund, also a part of our constitution created by amendment in 1976. This fund was created in order to protect a portion of the oil revenue from the insatiable appetite of government to spend every last penny on their precious programs and provide for the day when the oil and its revenue stops flowing. The money that is allocated to the Permananet fund is invested just like any other mutual fund in Stocks, Bonds, Realestate etc. Every year all eligible Alaskan residents receive a dividend check based on a percentage of the 5-year moving average of the net revenue generated by the fund's investment portfolio. Many people have the misconception that this is a governement hand out. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is every current and future Alaska resident's savings account created from the revenue generated by the sale of OUR natural resources. We have some very insightful and far thinking founders of our state to thank for the Permanent Fund. If you would like to learn more about the Permanant fund, go to http://www.apfc.org/

[Budget Queen]

I've lived in Juneau for 15 years and am a downtown small business owner. During that time I have watched the number of passengers and the size of the ships explode. In general, most local residents in Juneau and SE Alaska would like nothing more than a reduction in the number of ships and passengers in our town. So, if $50 per cruiser achieves that end, so be it. You need to understand that the quality of the experience is diminished significantly for you the passengers (not to mention those of us that choose to live here) when there are ten thousand plus passengers and another five thousand plus crew dumped in port on a single day. You also need to understand just how little of the money you spend in port actually stays here in the Alaskan economy. Most of the "made in china" trinket shops and the twenty plus jewelry stores that we have in downtown Juneau are either owned by the cruiselines or other non-alaskan businesses. Additionally, many of the employees in these establishments are imported from outside as well. So as soon as the cruise season ends they board up the shops for the winter and the employees and the profits leave for the lower 48. This isn't to say cruising doesn't benefit the local economy, it does, but it does not contribute many of the higher paying jobs and year round employment that our local private businesses and government employment opportunities do. The biggest and only beneficiary from the bloated numbers of tourists is the cruiselines themselves and their corporate owned shoreside businesses. I voted for the tax, not because of the revenue that will be generated and then wasted by our local and state politicos (thats the same everywhere) but because I want a reduction in the number of cruise ships and tourists because it will be beneficial to locals, tourists and the whole Alaskan experience and environment.

Also as a side note regarding educating folks and dispelling some of the misconceptions about our state's oil revenues. Unlike most states, Our state constitution is written in such a way that we, the people of Alaska, own all of our natural resources. Oil, Timber, Gold ect. And, our constitution mandates that all of our resources must be managed to the maximum benefit of the people. In the case of oil, which is our largest source of revenue, we have royalties and taxes which are assesed on a per barrel basis. In essence we the people of Alaska sell our oil to BP, Conoco Philips etc. who are then responsible for extracting it. Of those revenues, twenty five percent is allocated to the Alaska Permanent Fund, also a part of our constitution created by amendment in 1976. This fund was created in order to protect a portion of the oil revenue from the insatiable appetite of government to spend every last penny on their precious programs and provide for the day when the oil and its revenue stops flowing. The money that is allocated to the Permananet fund is invested just like any other mutual fund in Stocks, Bonds, Realestate etc. Every year all eligible Alaskan residents receive a dividend check based on a percentage of the 5-year moving average of the net revenue generated by the fund's investment portfolio. Many people have the misconception that this is a governement hand out. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is every current and future Alaska resident's savings account created from the revenue generated by the sale of OUR natural resources. We have some very insightful and far thinking founders of our state to thank for the Permanent Fund. If you would like to learn more about the Permanant fund, go to http://www.apfc.org/

 

 

I agree, it is NOTHING like my early 90 visits to Alaska, compared to today.

[BigDoug]

You also need to understand just how little of the money you spend in port actually stays here in the Alaskan economy. Most of the "made in china" trinket shops and the twenty plus jewelry stores that we have in downtown Juneau are either owned by the cruiselines or other non-alaskan businesses. Additionally, many of the employees in these establishments are imported from outside as well. So as soon as the cruise season ends they board up the shops for the winter and the employees and the profits leave for the lower 48. This isn't to say cruising doesn't benefit the local economy, it does, but it does not contribute many of the higher paying jobs and year round employment that our local private businesses and government employment opportunities do. The biggest and only beneficiary from the bloated numbers of tourists is the cruiselines themselves and their corporate owned shoreside businesses. I voted for the tax, not because of the revenue that will be generated and then wasted by our local and state politicos (thats the same everywhere) but because I want a reduction in the number of cruise ships and tourists because it will be beneficial to locals, tourists and the whole Alaskan experience and environment.

I know that Alaska does not have a state income or sales tax but don't the cities/towns have taxing authority? Does Juneau have a city sales tax? Alaska does have a corporate income tax, so the income from all those jewelry and trinket stores is taxed. So are all the profits of the other corporate bus lines and transportation companies. Alaska could impose a non-resident income tax. The Port Authorities of each port can limit the number of ships and the size of ships allowed into each port. If a community wants to reduce the number of visitors by cruise ship then your beef is with the Port Authority. Pressure them to reduce the number of ships allowed to dock daily. This $50 pp head tax is outrageous. Only $4 pp goes to the Ocean Ranger Program (environmental oversight). The other $46 pp goes into the General Fund.

[Beach4me]

I've lived in Juneau for 15 years and am a downtown small business owner.

 

What type of business? Where are you located? I am determined to give the locals my business while I am in Alaska next summer.

[dmyles1]

When the oil dries up, and the cruise ships no longer come to Alaska, the citizens can pan for gold and eat salmon. If the cruise line companys allow this blackmail they should be ashamed.

[cruie4ever]

We have sailed twice in the alaskan waters inside passage cruise & thorougly enjoyed both visits & side trips in Vancouver & Vancouver Island .

 

Being retired I earn extra money taking signatures to place petitions on the ballot ,here in California.So,i thoroughly understand the process to get a petition on a ballot as a proposition.In my opinion this Tax of $50 is a levy that is NOT Fair.for one is singles out just the folks that cruise.Secondly it is a tax on taxes already collected ;such as port taxes & goernment taxes.

 

All this will accomplish is less money spent on land by cruise passengers;which ultimately impacts the local economies where the ships dock in their Alaskan ports of call.

 

Just hope that the Alaskan Legislature repeals this ober bearing tax before both cruise passengers & local business are wronged.:mad:

[cruie4ever]

:mad: PS. We want to treat our adult daughter to see Alaska in 2008 .This is a reward for her achiving her Masters Degree in World History & to teach ,at the JR.College level.

 

This $50 tax is a extra burden of $150 added to a cruise. We planed to first cruise & then rent a motor home in Anchorage for 10 days. Being retired & on a fixed income this Tax is just another way of the State taking money they don't deserve.Thus, it is entirely possible that we will eliminate the cruise portion of our Alakan trip. We will still rent the motor home & that contributes to the Alaskan economy.

 

The bottom line is that a $50 PP added cruise tax will only hurt the consuming passenger & thus impact the local business ,like restaurants,bed & breakfasts,motels,hotels,tours,ie

 

Doesn't the State understand that the vast majority of those who cruise to Alaska are seniors who need their money to last.Well so much for helping our aging population to get their wish to see the last frontier.

[Crushed Tilley Hat]

You must understand that this was not meant to be a "tax on Cruisers or tourists". This is how the Cruise industry attacked the ballot measure. This was meant to tax the cruise lines. The way they did it was to come up with an amount per passenger. The cruise lines register out of country so they don't pay income tax, they pay no corporate tax, in Alaska they paid no or very little port taxes. They own their buses, their hotels, and their train cars. This was a way to get some money from the cruise lines to put back into ports and environmental protection. Whether it does that or not remains to be seen.

 

Many Carribean ports and European ports have port taxes per person. They don't tax "tourists" per se. In the past when individual Alaskan ports tried to put on port taxes the Cruise lines threatened to just go to a different port. Now they can't. I beleive this will show up on the ticket as a port tax just like many other cruises have.

 

This is every current and future Alaska resident's savings account created from the revenue generated by the sale of OUR natural resources

 

Quote B checks Quote A and so on, and so on and so on. One question from Quote A? So did the cruise lines draft your resolution because you really just wanted to hurt the "Cruise Lines"????

[Chat Noir]

Thus, it is entirely possible that we will eliminate the cruise portion of our Alakan trip. We will still rent the motor home & that contributes to the Alaskan economy.

 

I wouldn't let an added $150 ruin a much anticipated cruise. You may have to give up an expensive excursion, or not purchase an expensive Alaskan souvenir, but the Alaskan coast is too beautiful to give up on so easily. Since you've sailed it before, you know that... consider your daughter if she hasn't.

I don't like the tax, but I can't change it. I'll just budget for it, robbing Peter to pay Paul.:)

Personally, I think I could enjoy a port-free sailing, just spending time on deck sight-seeing as we sail by, but I know that wouldn't go over well with the residents, either!