Over 10 million happy customers since 1984
EMTs
Firefighters
Interline
Military
Past Guests
Police
Singles
Teachers
Customer Feedback on Alaska Cruise Ship Tax
I received more than 5,000 votes regarding Alaska's recently approved "Cruise Ship Tax". The vote was 97% Opposed, 3% In Favor. Here's a sampling of the comments that accompanied the votes.
Alan Fox
“I am opposed to the new $50 "cruise ship tax" for Alaskan cruise passengers. It sounds like it is more about the money than the environment. I cannot think of a quicker way for the residents to damage a thriving business, as well as the associated tourism and commerce businesses, that so much of the state depends on for its livelihood. Although this tax is only a small amount of the total for a cruise of that nature, it sets a precedent for other locations to attempt to raise additional revenues without having to offer any additional amenities or do anything extra at all. This new tax and all its additional ramifications will definitely cause me to think twice about taking another Alaskan cruise.
The "ocean ranger" program is in and of itself a good idea, and would appear to be money well spent.”
Brian M.
North Tonawanda, NY
“My home is in Vancouver, British Columbia and I have cruised to Alaska three times over the past few years and have always found it to be a marvelous experience. The cruise industry has done wonders for my home city and has been a good corporate citizen to the homeport of many of these great ships. I, for one, am completely against this tax and will bet the citizens of Alaska will rue the day that this tax is ever implemented.”
Don M.
Vancouver, Canada
“I was very disappointed to see that Ballot Measure #2, the 'cruise ship tax', had passed in Alaska. It would have made much more sense if it was only about $5, but a $50/person increase is ridiculous. The part that is really bad is the provision that allows Alaska residents to file complaints or lawsuits and get 50% of the fines collected. If that is the case they should also pay the Attorney's fees to fight the claims in court. That would eliminate most of the frivolous cases.
I had been planning a 2007 cruise ship vacation to Alaska, but we will probably select a new location now. I expect that as people hear about this 'cruise ship tax' there will be many more who will reconsider their cruise location, and go to other areas.”
Arnie A.
Lisbon, ND
“Alaska is one of our last treasures in the United States. The people of Alaska live there and the rest of us are just visiting. This is not an unreasonable fee because ultimately Alaska will benefit and we the visitors will benefit because the cruise lines will be monitored and the harbors will be improved. (That is if the politicians don't figure out some way to take this money and use it somewhere else.) I am for the $50.00 fee.”
Arlene B.
Jupiter, FL
“I live in Ketchikan, AK, and I voted against Ballot Meas. 2. My husband, two partners and I operate a flightseeing company that depends on the cruise industry to survive. We were very upset about this ballot measure. The ports that are regularly visited by the cruise ships soundly defeated this initiative, however, our voice doesn't count against our numerous Anchorage residents. As I understand it, Anchorage will be getting most of the $46, not the ports that are heavily visited by the cruise lines.
This is yet another blow to Alaska by uneducated environmental groups. It seems that environmentalists do not approve any industry in Alaska - no matter how little impact it has on our environment! Apparently, they want this to be a big park that no one can visit.”
Abby K.
Ketchikan, AK
“As a several-times cruiser, I am very much in favor of the tax and the purposes it will go for. I do not believe that an extra 50 bucks will keep anyone from taking an Alaska cruise, while I think the money will go for good purposes. The requirement that cruise lines post their shore excursion markups is a great idea -- and may actually shame some of them when the amount of their outrageous profits on such excursions is revealed.”
Don B.
Eugene, Oregon
“This news is very disturbing. Our family has a group of twelve already booked on a cruise in June 2007. I feel it would be most unfair to impose this fee on us and others who have already booked.
Some in our group are senior citizens with fixed incomes and one is a single mom taking 3 children and has already stated that she will have to take out a loan in order to go on the trip. Our budgets are already stretched and over-reached and this news will have to make us reconsider our plans.”
Laura O.
Jacksonville, FL
“Perhaps, Carnival (ccl), of which my wife and I are stockholders, as well as other lines involved in cruising in those waters should withdraw for a season to other waters. This would allow time for all legal issues to be litigated. Since the kind and loving people of Alaska have yet to read the constitution regarding Interstate commerce as well as right of passage, this would afford them that time, at THEIR OWN EXPENSE.”
Tom H.
Vancouver, WA
“In response to your poll, I think this tax is a great idea. I've taken an Alaska cruise and the volume of people that pass through their state is staggering and undoubtedly takes its toll on the environment. When you're already spending a few thousand dollars for a cruise, you can afford another $50 to defray your affect on such a beautiful state.”
Sincerely,
Cindy S.
Long Beach, CA
“We oppose the new Alaska head tax. Although it will not stop us from going to Alaska again (at least two more trips planned), we will make every effort to inform locals that their tax has limited our $$$$ and we will not be spending when going ashore. We will settle for the view and pictures while they stand by and watch. We will no longer support or advertise Alaska with clothing items.
ENOUGH ALREADY. This will affect ALL future cruise prices, not just Alaska cruises. The bottom line for the cruise industry has taken a hit with additional taxes on the associated lines that cruise Alaska. We, the cruise population, will feel the Alaska tax in any of our future cruises as pricing will escalate. Remember, people pay taxes, not corporations; they just pass along the additional operational expense.”
Ronald T.
Ironton, OH
“I strongly favor the $50.00/head cruise tourist tax that Alaskans approved. While tourism is a boon to Alaska in some ways, in others it is an unmitigated disaster. When 5 2000-passenger cruise ships put in to Skagway, population 800, as they do several times a week in the summer; the place is overwhelmed--trash all over, huge strains on water and sewer systems.
Yes, there are 26,000 tourism jobs, but many of the seasonal workers come from the lower 48 and return there after the season ends. Yes, Alaska is huge, but the ecology is very fragile. So many cruise ships and so many people put enormous pressure on the land and sea. If the state does use the monies raised by this tax as it states it will, some of the harm done by tourism will be mitigated. Some of what the tourists go to Alaska to see will still be there when they arrive. Or maybe the extra $50.00 per person will reduce the number of passengers just a little. That would not be a bad thing in my opinion.
I have cruised to or from Alaska 3 times over the last 15 years and used to work in Nome, Barrow, and Dillingham, spending a lot of time in Anchorage. In recent years Alaska has changed and not for the better. Much of that change has been driven by the tourist industry.”
Sincerely,
Fred G.
Medina, WA
“According to the US Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (This is known as "The Commerce Clause").
According to this, Congress can strike down ANY state law that affects "interstate Commerce." Interstate Commerce has been interpreted liberally, but would CLEARLY apply to Cruise ships with passengers from other states that get on cruise ships originating outside of Alaska.
Maybe the way to proceed is to get a bunch of people to write their Representatives and Senators to get this rule blocked.
Seems like a no-brainer.”
Jim G.
Silver Spring, MD
“My husband and I are having our 50th Wedding Anniversary and have booked all our children and grandchildren (17) on a cruise to Alaska next June 15 (Celebrity).
Now I noticed that this would cost us $850.00 more!!!!!! What a bummer, this is money we could spend on shore doing some sight seeing. The merchants in Alaska will be on the losing end of that deal!”
Delia P.
Hudsonville, MI
“We just returned from a wonderful Alaska cruise vacation with our entire family of eleven including children and grandchildren. The new tax would have cost us an additional $550, which may have eliminated the cruise or certainly reduced the 30 shore excursions our family collectively purchased. It appears that the proponents of this bill added the shared lawsuit revenues for residents to buy votes for their proposal. When so many people in Alaska are supported by cruise tourism it is hard to believe they would support this kind of shortsighted legislation. I firmly believe that this rip off is taking advantage of the cruise passengers and will be a detriment to cruise tourism in Alaska.”
Vern B.
Holland, MI
“We in California will be responding to the Alaskan Cruise Tax by imposing a $10.00 per pound tax on all California products sent to our Alaskan friends. What goes around comes around.”
Gary G.
La Habra, CA
“The tax law that was just passed is outrageous, but I doubt it will stop many people from cruising Alaska.
Having just returned from one of your cruises, I can appreciate why so many Alaskans object to cruise ships. On the day we were in Juneau there were five cruise ships in the harbor -- an influx of about 10,000 people. My gosh, there was hardly room to get into the Red Dog Saloon. If I were a resident, I would have voted for the tax, too. The cruise industry has caused massive changes in the character of the port towns -- not all of them good.
But, being from the lower forty-eight and wanting to continue enjoying the best deal possible, I object to the tax and the frivolous complaints the law invites.”
Glenn P.
Independence, OR
“I oppose this $50.00 increase per person so much that my wife and I will not be taking a cruise to Alaska as we had planned for the summer of 2007. Instead we will change those plans and will be going to the Caribbean for the 4th time. They've been hit with the hurricanes too many times in the past several years so I'll let my vacation dollars go to those that appreciate them. Alaska can stick it where the sun don't shine and you can forward my letter to them if you wish. Thanks for all you do and we look forward to our cruise on November 30th through Vacations To Go, to the Mexican Riviera.”
Mark W.
Colorado Springs, CO
“Thank you for addressing this shoddy piece of legislation. I was director of tourism for the Anchorage CVB and have forwarded your newsletter to many contacts involved in the Alaska tourism industry, so you may be getting comments from those not on your email list.
Unfortunately, as much as I adore Alaska, there is a terrible "entitlement" mentality in the population. There are many that espouse the "Chilkoot Charlie's" theory of "We cheat the other guy, and pass the savings on to you!"
The tourism industry failed in their efforts--they hired an "outside" PR firm, and it was just too slick to be trusted. I know--we made the same mistake the first time we proposed a new civic and convention center. And, I know that many did not know this was a California-based initiative--that would have killed it immediately--if you understand Alaskans! hee hee!
We don't need more legislative protection of the environment--the cruise lines do an extraordinary job, and if they fail, they do pay the big bucks. I have seen an industry official actually drink retreated water!
As far as I know, I don't think gambling is allowed within a certain area of Alaska shoreline, ie: not in Alaska waters. So why would they have to pay taxes on that revenue?
I don't think there is much objection to the $50 head tax--if it is shown to be used to improve port facilities, and perhaps contribute to tourism marketing, however, taxes are not allowed to be earmarked for or dedicated to any particular use--it all goes to the general fund, and we have to trust (again, tongue in cheek...) our legislature to ensure the $$$ goes where it were initially intended.
Reporting commissions--how ridiculous! It's like going to a grocery and they say, "I paid $.19 for this cucumber, but I'm charging you $1.19!”
Denise B.
Anchorage, AK
“I would not mind paying $50 a person extra for the environment. Divide that by the length of the cruise and it would be less per day than the cruise lines ask us to pay in tips.
The cruise ships do not like Ballot 2 because it cuts into their bottom line. The 33% tax on gambling would not affect the passengers on the cruise. They already lost the money in the casino. The cruise lines would have to pay it. No wonder they don't like it.
I always wondered what the markup on shore excursions was.”
Francis S.
Swansboro, NC
“I am in favor of the $50 tax, I have been to Alaska and if the money is used as stated, it is well worth a mere $50.00, its only the cost of a bottle of red wine.”
Christine C.
Melbourne, Australia
“We have taken one cruise so far. We have been to Alaska (by air) several times. We are newly retired "Boomers" and are making our travel plans (looking mainly at cruises) for the next few years. Alaska was on our list of cruise "possibilities" but as a result of this new "tax" development, Alaska has moved to the bottom and, more realistically, off of our list. It seems like more and more, the attitude is becoming "screw the tourists". Most of us worked pretty darn hard for the travel we now enjoy and while I know that we are welcomed in most places because we also bring dollars, I appreciate the hospitality and consideration we are afforded. We are paying to be accommodated and that seems fair.
What doesn't seem fair is extracting extra "tax and fees" dollars from Americans in America. This new tax makes about as much sense as imposing a $50 "Mainland fee" on all Alaskans who travel to the mainland.”
Tom H.
Vancouver, WA
“Well someone always has to kill the goose that lays the Golden Egg. After just returning from a two-week trip to Alaska with my family of four and having traveled around the world with our family, I can honestly say Alaska is one of the more expensive places to travel. We can only be grateful we went to Alaska this year.
These are not small numbers they are talking about. So instead of sending my parents on an Alaskan cruise next year, it will be cheaper to send them to Europe and that is where they will go.
The message from the people of Alaska is we don't want you...Well I have read it loud and clear and have listened. For a state of people who don't like taxes and government intervention, they certainly didn't vote what they would choose to live with.
Taxation never brings in more revenue, it stops people from spending money and this can be proven historically. Lower taxes result in higher revenue. Maybe a math lesson is in order for the politicians and people of Alaska.”
Nancy D.
Capo Beach, CA