rstidolph

I don't see the uproar about car rental taxes or hotel occupancy taxes. The majority of tourists go to Alaska and do not stay in hotels or mrent cars. It seems the logical way for them to get their money. If you don't want to pay the port charge take a land tour.

coplatsat

Alaskans need to be careful not to kill the golden goose. Without cruising the towns visited by the cruises would be severly impacted.

For example, Sitka. There is fishing and maybe timber, but what else? All of those stores down town selling jewels and furs would go under. So would a lot of the restaurants. That would hike the unemployment rate up, and the economy would crumble.

What the cruises do, is actually preserve the small towns and allow the locals to stay and work in tourism.

$50 bucks a head is onething, but 1/3 of the casino revenue is a little greedy.

Cruise industry does not want to start a precedent around the work at all of the other ports, so if Alaskans get too greedy, some of the lines could pull out just for spite.

Globaliser

I would have thought that those proposing the tax would have worked out how much money is genuinely made by the tourism industry for Alaska. The answer is often "Not as much as you might think".

London, for example, probably makes zero money overall out of tourism, after you count the hidden costs to those of us who live and work here. Congestion caused by tourists is one of the biggest, which usually doesn't get factored in when the tourist industry is estimating the benefit it brings to a particular place.

So I wouldn't be surprised if a similar study has been made in Alaska.

coplatsat

London does not need tourist, it has a lot of business travelers and other industry. There is not much in Alaska but Tourism, Fishing, Oil, and timber. In SE Alaska it is fishing and timber.

greatam

The infrastructure in Alaska is taking a beating, particlularly SE Alaska, due to cruise pax. All those busses, all those limos, etc. are really hard on the roads. And a good percentage of them are licensed out of state, by out of state companies, so the only thing they pay is road and fuel taxes. No personal property tax, no license fees, etc. etc. VERY little contribution to Alaskan infrastructure. Do you really expect the citizens of Alaska to cough up money for YOUR road damage and other infrastructure repairs and improvements? The citizenry is NOT benefiting that much from the cruise companies.

Globaliser

As I say, I'm sure that they will have done studies to work out how much they do and do not need tourism, and how much tourism costs them as well as benefits them. The answers are not always obvious, either to those who live in the tourist destination or to the tourists.

In fact, the answers are often especially unobvious to the type of tourist who loves the power of waving their money around and thinking that their very presence is an unalloyed boon to the place they're in. Nothing could be further from the truth.

coplatsat

Raise the port charges, institute sales tax ec.. Personal property tax is still due from the companies regardless of where they are located. It depends on the location of the asset or you can make your law say so. Also, you can pass laws requiring Alaska licenses. Or as I said before charge the $50 per head, but taking 1/3 of casino revenue is not going to be liked by the cruise lines.

The citizenry is benefitting more than you think. There is a lot of restaurants and stores that would shut down if the ships quit coming. What would happen to Stika if the lines just decided to pass this port? I have spent some time there, and the only industry I observed was 1. Tourism, and 2 Fishing.

My point is the citizens of Alaska need to be careful on what they pass. You do not want to kill the golden goose.

greatam

Sales tax would apply to residents as well. Not very fair to the locals.


Would be almost impossible to change. The rules governing licenses and personal property taxes fall under reciprocity, DOT, IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) and apportionment statutes governing MOST surface transportation "for hire" vehicles. The transportation industry has worked very hard for many years to have some standardization between the states. Alaska looses out because most of the year, there are not that many surface transportation vehicles. But during the summer, when HAL, Princess and Celebrity ship all those busses to Alaska, the year round rules apply.


Most of the Indian casinos in Arizona and California are taxed by the state at least at the same rate.

A large percentage of those stores on the cruise ship routes are OWNED by the cruiselines. Very little money stays in the state from those stores. And all the "made in China" souvenirs, which copy true Alaska items, are certainly not contributing to the Alaska economy. I went looking for Ulu knives last week in Juneau. Could only find 2 kinds out of about 20 that were not "made in China.

Here is a link to a statistical discussion on Cruise Critic. The facts and figures were compiled by an Alaskan. In 2005, almost 95% of the Alaska visitors were cruise ship pax.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=411116

Globaliser

Although that assumes what is in issue. Is tourism (particularly cruise ship tourism) a golden goose - or even a goose that lays golden eggs? Or is it actually just a drongo in a glitzy disguise?

greatam

Drongo-a bird or an idiot???? (yes, I looked it up, but FT's search function wasn't working very well )

I thinks you spend a lot of time in Aussie land.

rstidolph

While many of the items sold in shops may be made in other countries. A good portion of the tour guides and people who work in the stores are native Alaskans. Adding a $50.00 tax is not going to stop cruisers. Currently on a cruise travel web site there is major discussion about Holland America raising the cost of their specialty restaurant from $20.00 pp to $30.00 pp.. People who want to visit Alaska will still do so.

Globaliser

Indeed, I thinks I do!

I chose "drongo" to reflect the metaphor which I was addressing. Golden goose, or worthless idiotic bird?

(To be absolutely fair, the latter should be "bird whose name has become unfairly associated with idiocy through onomatopoeia".)