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

[mbisson]

I just had an idea for a new cruise line. All of the prices will be operating costs plus $150. Each stateroom will be a luxuriously finished cargo container - approximately 20' in length. Washington can have $50 per "stateroom" when the ship leaves Seattle, Alaska can have $50 for the person traveling, and you and I can split the other $50...! (I think I'll save up my share until I can afford to go airborne-wolf-hunting.)

 

-Case

 

You wanna put your banker onto getting us a loan, to build the ship,or should I have mine work on it? ;)

 

-Monte

[celle]

My TA said it will apply to everyone who hadn't made their final payment by 01/01/07, regardless of when the booking was done, and will be collected in an adjusted final payment if it wasn't reflected in the original quote.

 

I made my final payment on 26th May 2006 for an Alaska cruise commencing 8th June 2007 (I paid in full when first booking, to "freeze" the cost, and avoid paying more through international currency fluctuations).

 

The additional US$50 per person has still been added to my cruise cost, due for payment 30th May 2006.

[kennicott]

Yesterday’s Anchorage paper ran two editorials regarding both subjects at hand here. In addition, the estimated cost of the Ketchikan bridge project just got escalated to almost a half billion. It is doubtful that either bridge gets constructed. Incidentally, the funds that were under consideration for use on these bridges are not, hand out, funds directly out of the Federal treasury. They are proportioned allotments out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund that come from highway and fuel taxes Alaskans pay. These are used for capital construction expenses on the major road and marine highway system in this state. The problem with these two bridge projects is that they are so extremely expensive that they will absolutely strap the states ability to enhance and construct other, possibly more worthy, road systems in Alaska for years to come.

 

 

http://www.adn.com/opinion/v-printer/story/8642524p-8534419c.html

[mbisson]

"BOTTOM LINE: A good tax is a fair tax. This is not."

 

While I don't support this (as I said), I guess fair tax depends on which side of the fence you're on.

 

For instance:

"Impose a tax. But call it a user fee. And make sure someone else pays much of it.

It's just the kind of tax policy sure to warm the heart of many Alaskans. Too bad that "someone else" includes us. Now the only thing being warmed up in Alaska is legislative and business opposition to the proposed Washington state tax on shipping containers moving in and out of its ports."

 

That could easily (and with only slight changes) be made to show how I feel about that Alaskan approved cruise tax. Humm-maybe this bill isn't as wicked as I first thought ;)

 

Let's see--"impose a tax. But call it an environmental/infrastructure fee. And make sure someone else pays ALL of it.

It's just the kind of tax policy sure to warm the heart of many cruisers. Too bad that "someone else" includes us cruisers."

 

I agree with much of what these editorials say. (and lets not even begin to dwell on the idea that's again floating around to drill a hole thru the mountain between Juneau & Skagway-LOL)

 

-Monte

[Eeyoregon]

upset about the possibility of Alaska adding taxes for cruises and cruise passengers

 

It's not a "possibility"...they already did it and it's in effect retroactive to everyone cruising in 2007!

 

I really don't mind paying the extra $200 but what irks me is that this was approved in August 2006, I booked my cruise January 25, 2007 and there was NO MENTION of this new fee in any way. Then on February 9, 2007 I get the email and bill telling me this is mandatory and there are no exceptions for people that already booked their cruises and to pay up. How many more emails and additional fees will I find out about between now and June??? :mad:

[mbisson]

Probably none (I'm not aware of any other time the cruise lines have had to do this). But since you're on NCL, I'll hope you are aware that they will bill your acct $10 per person per day for tips.

 

You'll have a great time!

[kingsgirl]

It's not a "possibility"...they already did it and it's in effect retroactive to everyone cruising in 2007!

 

I really don't mind paying the extra $200 but what irks me is that this was approved in August 2006, I booked my cruise January 25, 2007 and there was NO MENTION of this new fee in any way. Then on February 9, 2007 I get the email and bill telling me this is mandatory and there are no exceptions for people that already booked their cruises and to pay up. How many more emails and additional fees will I find out about between now and June??? :mad:

 

I understand with your dilemma. I booked May 2006 for the end of May 2007. I had no idea about the tax at the time and RCI has yet to personally tell me or my TA about the tax, it has not been applied to my booking and my harassing (lol) attempts in bugging my TA have resulted in nothing b/c they still say that they haven't gotten to my cruise date (which is a lie since members of my roll call knew months ago and were informed by RCI).

 

I just wanted to be officially told and not find out through a random way. I would never have known if my brother didn't say he saw an article about something about taxes and cruises in Alaska, or coming to the boards.

 

I'd rather they be upfront is all. I understand the issue that it's a tax and they aren't responsible and it's in the contract.

 

Just inform your passengers!

[Eeyoregon]

But since you're on NCL, I'll hope you are aware that they will bill your acct $10 per person per day for tips.

 

We did the prepaid tips when we booked the cruise so that I don't have to hear/think about them again, LOL. The respresentative at NCL said they will only automatically charge tips to your account if you specifically request that they do so.

 

I don't mind paying the $200 for tips for the 4 of us because I know that the employees rely on tip money to supplement their low wages. But $200 to "enter" Alaskan waters and not being told about it upfront rubbed me the wrong way.

[Eeyoregon]

But since you're on NCL, I'll hope you are aware that they will bill your acct $10 per person per day for tips.

 

We did the prepaid tips when we booked the cruise so that I don't have to hear/think about them again, LOL. The respresentative at NCL said they will only automatically charge tips to your account if you specifically request that they do so.

 

I don't mind paying the $200 for tips for the 4 of us because I know that the employees rely on tip money to supplement their low wages. But $200 to "enter" Alaskan waters and not being told about it upfront rubbed me the wrong way.

[wallingf]

We have our 2007 Alaska cruise booked and already received our email about the extra $50/per person tax. Was I happy? Of course not. Will I still go? Of course. $100 is not that big a deal to us now - but when I read about the families and the additional $200....I remembered those days when we scrimped and saved so that we could take a cruise with a two kids. Another $200 back then would have matter - A LOT. And bring the grandmother or a third kid? Now it is $250. It made me recognize that $50 per person feels a bit steep...for whatever the reason. That is $75,000 to $100,000 per ship. I don't know how many ships go each week - but that's a lot of new income for Alaska.

 

In any case, IMHO this will not stop people from cruising to Alaska. Anyone saying that "this is the purpose of the tax" needs a reality-check. There will be plenty of grumbling and then by 2008 everyone will forget about it and travel as usual. No one will be saying "Nope, not cruising to Alaska because it will cost $50 more". If Alaska truly wanted to reduce the number of tourists and cruise ships, they could simply limit the number of ships in any given port on any given day. Or shut down some of those ports when the agreeents run out. There are lots of ways to limit how many tourists are coming from cruise ships - without taxing those that do. This is not about limiting people from coming, it is about getting more money from those that do.

 

But wait, "those people don't have to pay sales tax when they are here". I live in NH. My property taxes are higher than most, as we don't have a sales or income tax either. We like it that way. But I am pretty sure we don't charge $50 per person for each cruise ship that comes. Oh wait....none come :D Anyway, my point is, stop defending the tax because "tourists don't pay sales tax when they visit". Mainers and Mass people cross our border every day to buy in NH. We don't tax them to come in. They work in our state. We don't tax them for that either.

 

So, what will happen with the money? I suspect much of it will be used to build up the port towns (or establish new ports) so that they eventually can handle more cruise ships and tourists. Anyone saying those towns don't rely on tourism also needs a reality check. Of course they do. Even they will tell you that.

 

None of this is bad. I just can't understand why people are saying that 1) it is because Alaska wants fewer tourists, 2) fewer tourists will come, and 3) Alaska doesn't rely on the tourism. 1) Wrong, 2) More Wrong, 3) Most Wrong.

 

In summary - I really have no problem with the additional tax, in and of itself, but 1) it was too steep, 2) make it part of your port fees, if that is what it realy is and 2) stop using foolish reasons to try and justify it. It is what it is. People that want to see Alaska will pay it. Those that don't will go somewhere else.

[diverearl]

They might not get more money from their cruise visitors already booked, the money some of the cruisers were planning on spending might just be redirected for a short period to the government instead of the small businesses at each port. The cost of the tax probably will not affect the further bookings. The small operators will suffer the most and competition will be reduced for the major more costly tour providers.

 

I think we should start charging a visitor from Alaska a $50.00 fee (TAX) to come to any other state in the UNION. It has been my experience if you gouge your customers enough they will eventually quit coming. With most people it is not the money just the idea of being taken advantage of ( AGAIN ).

 

Just a possible scenario, and it does hit a raw nerve in my body that Alaska would impose such a tax. They seem to gouge the visitors every chance they get. Maybe we should leave them alone for a year or two and see if they would like to welcome our business back at that time :rolleyes: . IMHO. OK I feel better .

[mbisson]

The respresentative at NCL said they will only automatically charge tips to your account if you specifically request that they do so.

.

 

It's obvious the person you talked with hasn't been on an NCL cruise ship in quite some time! (as a betting soul, I'd bet never)

[Yukon]

... it does hit a raw nerve in my body that Alaska would impose such a tax. They seem to gouge the visitors every chance they get.

 

And the cruise lines don't??? Whether I agree with the tax or not, it's a done deal for now at least, and I have no problem at all rationalizing it as moving money from the ships to where it belongs. If bookings slow down the cruise lines will absorb the tax, if bookings continue to increase they will continue to gouge you every step of the way - some of it blatant, a lot of it hidden unless you know where to look. If people take fewer excursions or buy less junk in the shops, most of the people affected aren't Alaskans anyway. Will it change our cruising plans? Not in any way.

 

Murray