FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Alaska to charge each cruise ship passenger a $50 head tax
Old Sep 2, 2006, 7:38 am
  #11  
cbalaska
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MCO
Programs: DL DM,MM; AS; USeless Air, HHonors Diamond, Starwood Plat, Hyatt Gold
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by rlb
I am an Alaskan, when we take a cruise to southern climates- the taxes are higher than Alaska cruises presently. A 7 day cruise-to Alaska- on the Princess site shows approx. $73.00 for taxes- A 7 day cruise to the Western Caribbean the taxes are $116- and you do not have anywhere close to the scenery, wildlife, and etc.- you see on an Alaskan Cruise. The funds will be used directly for tourism related costs- i.e. docks, harbors, trails, viewing areas by glaciers, streams, and etc.- The reason for an inspector on a ship to be sure that our waters are not poluted- that our wonderful waters will produce the safe and abundant seafood we have now, and ship throughout the world. The gambling- well, all other states tax the gambling that happens in thier state- And.. re disclosure of the commissions and advertizing done on the ship- is consumer protection- many first time cruisers- do not know that the "recommended shops" pay for the opportunity to be "recommended"- they may or may not be the best priced or the most reliable.

That is why the majority of Alaskans pass the inititive. The cruise industry spent well over 1 million dollars trying to convince us that "we did not understand"- to bad they didn't spend that money on more productive, concrete things- we did understatnd- - we enjoy all the folks that come to see our great state, but it costs money to provide the necessary infrastructures for all our guests.
In response....
1. Taxes are NOT based on scenery, wildlife, etc. People choose different cruises for different reasons and less than 10% of all cruisers take them to Alaska. 53% go to the Caribbean so your argument that cruisers should pay more tax to see wildlife and scenery is not good. The demand just isn't there. Most people would rather lie on a beach or cruise to warm tropical locales.

2. The funds WILL NOT be used directly for tourism related costs and infrastructure - and certainly not for tourism marketing to bring more people to the entire state - not just SouthEast. The funds are earmarked to go into the state's General Fund to pay for things like legislator's salaries and Murky's airplane. That's been the big rub with the tourism industry for the past 10 years or so that some greedy legislator has tried to get this passed.

3. Several years ago the state tightened up on the pollution and levied heavy fines on some of the ships. They cut back the number of ships allowed per summer into Glacier Bay. They have done a good job of policing the industry regarding maintaining the pristineness of Alaska. An inspector is just a free ride on a cruise ship all summer for some lucky state employees.

4. There is no other jurisdiction IN THE WORLD that taxes cruise ships on gambling. And if they want to tax like other states do - 33% is still outlandish and unrealistic. The cruise lines will just not operate the casinos in Alaska - after all, most people come for the beautiful scenery and wildlife, right?

5. On disclosure of commissions and advertising - give me a break! Consumer protection my butt. This is not to protect the Alaskan consumer - so why do they care? And everyone on a cruise ship knows that there is a middle-man between them and the goods. Cruise passengers are not stupid - they know that if someone is pushing a particular store, they probably get something out of it, whether it's on a cruise ship or at a resort or in their own home town. Mark-up is the American way. And if they want to protect the consumer so badly, why is this just a TARGETED TAX at the cruise industry? There are nearly half-a-million other visitors who come to Alaska every year. Why not charge the tour companies and airlines and RV companies a head tax for every visitor?

6. As for the Alaskans who "don't understand" - I think the industry was trying to alert you to the fact that if taxes and regulations become too severe, the cruise lines have a choice and don't have to be there. Carnival Corp alone owns 60-70% of the berth space in Alaska. If Mickey Arison decides this is not a good thing financially, he could pull some or all of their ships out. There are many other destinations in the world where a cruise ship can go filled and profitably.There are not too may other big players out there to carry the 600,000 or so passengers if they leave. That means visitor numbers dwindle and the nice ride that every Alaskan has on the coattails of cruising may come to an end.

To consider the impact to an Alaskan who has nothing to do with tourism --- just look around your town think about all the restaurants and hotels and shops that have opened in the past 10 years. And all the people in your community who have jobs to support them. And where do all those people spend their money? Tourism is Alaska's second largest industry and without tourism dollars coming in to the state, your favorite place may not exist. Almost 3 times more tourists come to Alaska every year than there are residents.


Sorry to ramble on - this is obviously a hot issue and having spent 28 years of my life in Alaska tourism, I am rather passionate about it. The bottom line is, the state needs to be realistic. Just the $50 head tax alone would be fine and I think most cruise lines and passengers would accept it. The rest of it, though, is a bunch of hooey!
cbalaska is offline