Alaska cruise tax initiative passes!

In spite of the industry's million and a half dollar advertising
blitz, the voters of Alaska didn't buy the cruise industry's
lies! They voted 52% to 47% to levy a $50 per passenger fee,
make cruise lines once again subject to Alaska corporate income
taxes, put state ocean rangers on every cruise ship to change the
industry's record of pollution violations, force the industry to
disclose fees paid for mentioning shops in "port lectures" and
the commissions on shore excursions, and to tax the cruise
industry's gambling take at the same 1/3 of gross receipts paid
by Alaska's charitable gaming licensees.

In other words, Alaskans are sick and tired of paying for all the
negative impacts of the cruise industry, believe that the
industry should pay taxes and fees like every other industry in
Alaska, and voted to make it happen.

I only pray that it will cost them enough that there are fewer
passengers coming to Alaska each year. If the numbers continue
to increase, I'm sure we'll vote to raise the gambling tax rate
even higher. The industry might be able to buy enough lobbyists
and legislators to keep legislation like this passing the
legislature, but they can't keep us off the ballot! The industry
spent at least $1.5 million, the proponents of the initiative
spent less than $5,000 --- and the voters knew who was telling
the truth and who was lying!

================================================== ===========
If you want to see the real Alaska, don't come on a
cruise ship! See the cruise industry rogue's gallery
at http://www.cruisejunkie.com/#Environmental_Issues

Dennis P. Harris

"Dennis P. Harris" wrote in message
...
In spite of the industry's million and a half dollar advertising
blitz, the voters of Alaska didn't buy the cruise industry's
lies! They voted 52% to 47% to levy a $50 per passenger fee,
make cruise lines once again subject to Alaska corporate income
taxes, put state ocean rangers on every cruise ship to change the
industry's record of pollution violations, force the industry to
disclose fees paid for mentioning shops in "port lectures" and
the commissions on shore excursions, and to tax the cruise
industry's gambling take at the same 1/3 of gross receipts paid
by Alaska's charitable gaming licensees.

In other words, Alaskans are sick and tired of paying for all the
negative impacts of the cruise industry, believe that the
industry should pay taxes and fees like every other industry in
Alaska, and voted to make it happen.

I only pray that it will cost them enough that there are fewer
passengers coming to Alaska each year. If the numbers continue
to increase, I'm sure we'll vote to raise the gambling tax rate
even higher. The industry might be able to buy enough lobbyists
and legislators to keep legislation like this passing the
legislature, but they can't keep us off the ballot! The industry
spent at least $1.5 million, the proponents of the initiative
spent less than $5,000 --- and the voters knew who was telling
the truth and who was lying!

================================================== ===========
If you want to see the real Alaska, don't come on a
cruise ship! See the cruise industry rogue's gallery
at http://www.cruisejunkie.com/#Environmental_Issues

Dennis P. Harris


I wonder how long it will be until someone files suit in Federal Court
saying that this statute violates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 of the
U.S. Constitution, which says, "No state shall, without the consent of the
Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may
be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net
produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports,
shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws
shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress." Since the
cruise ships invariably are foreign flagged, and almost always enter Alaska
from Vancouver, BC or another Canadian port, it could be argued that any
tariff imposed on passengers is in fact an import tariff.

--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.

It smacks of Alaska's politicians going after well-heeled tourists for a
good shaking down. The cruise lines will just pass it down to the cruisers,
and the cruisers will pay. The politicians have to make up for all that
lost BP oil revenue:-)

rg



"Dennis P. Harris" wrote in message
...
In spite of the industry's million and a half dollar advertising
blitz, the voters of Alaska didn't buy the cruise industry's
lies! They voted 52% to 47% to levy a $50 per passenger fee,
make cruise lines once again subject to Alaska corporate income
taxes, put state ocean rangers on every cruise ship to change the
industry's record of pollution violations, force the industry to
disclose fees paid for mentioning shops in "port lectures" and
the commissions on shore excursions, and to tax the cruise
industry's gambling take at the same 1/3 of gross receipts paid
by Alaska's charitable gaming licensees.

In other words, Alaskans are sick and tired of paying for all the
negative impacts of the cruise industry, believe that the
industry should pay taxes and fees like every other industry in
Alaska, and voted to make it happen.

I only pray that it will cost them enough that there are fewer
passengers coming to Alaska each year. If the numbers continue
to increase, I'm sure we'll vote to raise the gambling tax rate
even higher. The industry might be able to buy enough lobbyists
and legislators to keep legislation like this passing the
legislature, but they can't keep us off the ballot! The industry
spent at least $1.5 million, the proponents of the initiative
spent less than $5,000 --- and the voters knew who was telling
the truth and who was lying!

================================================== ===========
If you want to see the real Alaska, don't come on a
cruise ship! See the cruise industry rogue's gallery
at http://www.cruisejunkie.com/#Environmental_Issues

Dennis P. Harris

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:55:30 GMT in rec.travel.cruises, "Thomas
Smith" wrote:

it could be argued that any
tariff imposed on passengers is in fact an import tariff.

nope, sorry, it's a port fee, perfectly legal. the industry will
finally have to pay the full cost of accomodating them, and will
pay taxes like every other business here.

In article ,
"Thomas Smith" wrote:

"Dennis P. Harris" wrote in message
...
In spite of the industry's million and a half dollar advertising
blitz, the voters of Alaska didn't buy the cruise industry's
lies! They voted 52% to 47% to levy a $50 per passenger fee,
make cruise lines once again subject to Alaska corporate income
taxes, put state ocean rangers on every cruise ship to change the
industry's record of pollution violations, force the industry to
disclose fees paid for mentioning shops in "port lectures" and
the commissions on shore excursions, and to tax the cruise
industry's gambling take at the same 1/3 of gross receipts paid
by Alaska's charitable gaming licensees.

In other words, Alaskans are sick and tired of paying for all the
negative impacts of the cruise industry, believe that the
industry should pay taxes and fees like every other industry in
Alaska, and voted to make it happen.

I only pray that it will cost them enough that there are fewer
passengers coming to Alaska each year. If the numbers continue
to increase, I'm sure we'll vote to raise the gambling tax rate
even higher. The industry might be able to buy enough lobbyists
and legislators to keep legislation like this passing the
legislature, but they can't keep us off the ballot! The industry
spent at least $1.5 million, the proponents of the initiative
spent less than $5,000 --- and the voters knew who was telling
the truth and who was lying!

================================================== ===========
If you want to see the real Alaska, don't come on a
cruise ship! See the cruise industry rogue's gallery
at http://www.cruisejunkie.com/#Environmental_Issues

Dennis P. Harris


I wonder how long it will be until someone files suit in Federal Court
saying that this statute violates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 of the
U.S. Constitution, which says, "No state shall, without the consent of the
Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may
be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net
produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports,
shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws
shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress." Since the
cruise ships invariably are foreign flagged, and almost always enter Alaska
from Vancouver, BC or another Canadian port, it could be argued that any
tariff imposed on passengers is in fact an import tariff.

Interesting thought, especially since this is transportation, which
is well known as interstate commerce. I think the passenger tax might
stick. Does the gambling occur within Alaskan territorial waters? Then
that might stick, too. Otherwise, can't be enforced. The disclosures
might stick, at least in Alaskan ports.

Sounds like a good time to boycott Alaska!!! They are too greedy.
Don





"Dennis P. Harris" wrote in message
...
In spite of the industry's million and a half dollar advertising
blitz, the voters of Alaska didn't buy the cruise industry's
lies! They voted 52% to 47% to levy a $50 per passenger fee,
make cruise lines once again subject to Alaska corporate income
taxes, put state ocean rangers on every cruise ship to change the
industry's record of pollution violations, force the industry to
disclose fees paid for mentioning shops in "port lectures" and
the commissions on shore excursions, and to tax the cruise
industry's gambling take at the same 1/3 of gross receipts paid
by Alaska's charitable gaming licensees.

In other words, Alaskans are sick and tired of paying for all the
negative impacts of the cruise industry, believe that the
industry should pay taxes and fees like every other industry in
Alaska, and voted to make it happen.

I only pray that it will cost them enough that there are fewer
passengers coming to Alaska each year. If the numbers continue
to increase, I'm sure we'll vote to raise the gambling tax rate
even higher. The industry might be able to buy enough lobbyists
and legislators to keep legislation like this passing the
legislature, but they can't keep us off the ballot! The industry
spent at least $1.5 million, the proponents of the initiative
spent less than $5,000 --- and the voters knew who was telling
the truth and who was lying!

================================================== ===========
If you want to see the real Alaska, don't come on a
cruise ship! See the cruise industry rogue's gallery
at http://www.cruisejunkie.com/#Environmental_Issues

Dennis P. Harris

What this basically means is that there are enough people in Alaska that are
still greedy! First they looked for gold, then oil, and now cruise ships.
Seems like they keep looking for the free money.
Jim


"Thomas Smith" wrote in message
...

"Dennis P. Harris" wrote in message
...
In spite of the industry's million and a half dollar advertising
blitz, the voters of Alaska didn't buy the cruise industry's
lies! They voted 52% to 47% to levy a $50 per passenger fee,
make cruise lines once again subject to Alaska corporate income
taxes, put state ocean rangers on every cruise ship to change the
industry's record of pollution violations, force the industry to
disclose fees paid for mentioning shops in "port lectures" and
the commissions on shore excursions, and to tax the cruise
industry's gambling take at the same 1/3 of gross receipts paid
by Alaska's charitable gaming licensees.

In other words, Alaskans are sick and tired of paying for all the
negative impacts of the cruise industry, believe that the
industry should pay taxes and fees like every other industry in
Alaska, and voted to make it happen.

I only pray that it will cost them enough that there are fewer
passengers coming to Alaska each year. If the numbers continue
to increase, I'm sure we'll vote to raise the gambling tax rate
even higher. The industry might be able to buy enough lobbyists
and legislators to keep legislation like this passing the
legislature, but they can't keep us off the ballot! The industry
spent at least $1.5 million, the proponents of the initiative
spent less than $5,000 --- and the voters knew who was telling
the truth and who was lying!

================================================== ===========
If you want to see the real Alaska, don't come on a
cruise ship! See the cruise industry rogue's gallery
at http://www.cruisejunkie.com/#Environmental_Issues

Dennis P. Harris


I wonder how long it will be until someone files suit in Federal Court
saying that this statute violates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 of the
U.S. Constitution, which says, "No state shall, without the consent of the
Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may
be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net
produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or
exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and
all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the
Congress." Since the cruise ships invariably are foreign flagged, and
almost always enter Alaska from Vancouver, BC or another Canadian port, it
could be argued that any tariff imposed on passengers is in fact an import
tariff.

--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.

Don & Lynn wrote:
Sounds like a good time to boycott Alaska!!! They are too greedy.

For me, its a sign that its time to go back to Alaska: their
infrastructure does honestly need help, and if I can be the opposite of
a burden on my hosts by paying my fair share, everyone ends up a
winner.

IMO, the "greed" here is on the part of the self-serving traveller who
doesn't want to see his cruise prices to go up to actually pay for the
infrastructure that he has enjoyed. I really recommend people pick
someplace like Juneau and go read their onilne city council meetings,
such as this example:

http://www.juneau.org/assembly/minutes/2002/2002-04-01-Assembly_Minutes.pdf


Here, Juneau was trying to figure out how to scrape up $750K that was
needed to update their docks to support the then-new "Panamex" ships.
Because docking fees weren't high enough to pay that amount, the town
was looking towards the cruise lines and State to potentially help out
in a 'thirds' cost-sharing arrangement.

Gosh, it seems quite odd that someone who is supposedly so "greedy" is
having significant problems in a one-time raising of an amount of cash
that is less than the typical weekly gross revenues of *each* of the
typical cruise ship that visits them every day.


-hh

Cruise ships make ports go broke, sure they do.


"-hh" wrote in message
ups.com...

Don & Lynn wrote:
Sounds like a good time to boycott Alaska!!! They are too greedy.

For me, its a sign that its time to go back to Alaska: their
infrastructure does honestly need help, and if I can be the opposite of
a burden on my hosts by paying my fair share, everyone ends up a
winner.

IMO, the "greed" here is on the part of the self-serving traveller who
doesn't want to see his cruise prices to go up to actually pay for the
infrastructure that he has enjoyed. I really recommend people pick
someplace like Juneau and go read their onilne city council meetings,
such as this example:

http://www.juneau.org/assembly/minutes/2002/2002-04-01-Assembly_Minutes.pdf


Here, Juneau was trying to figure out how to scrape up $750K that was
needed to update their docks to support the then-new "Panamex" ships.
Because docking fees weren't high enough to pay that amount, the town
was looking towards the cruise lines and State to potentially help out
in a 'thirds' cost-sharing arrangement.

Gosh, it seems quite odd that someone who is supposedly so "greedy" is
having significant problems in a one-time raising of an amount of cash
that is less than the typical weekly gross revenues of *each* of the
typical cruise ship that visits them every day.


-hh

"-hh" wrote in message
ups.com...

Don & Lynn wrote:
Sounds like a good time to boycott Alaska!!! They are too greedy.

For me, its a sign that its time to go back to Alaska: their
infrastructure does honestly need help, and if I can be the opposite of
a burden on my hosts by paying my fair share, everyone ends up a
winner.

IMO, the "greed" here is on the part of the self-serving traveller who
doesn't want to see his cruise prices to go up to actually pay for the
infrastructure that he has enjoyed. I really recommend people pick
someplace like Juneau and go read their onilne city council meetings,
such as this example:

http://www.juneau.org/assembly/minutes/2002/2002-04-01-Assembly_Minutes.pdf


Here, Juneau was trying to figure out how to scrape up $750K that was
needed to update their docks to support the then-new "Panamex" ships.
Because docking fees weren't high enough to pay that amount, the town
was looking towards the cruise lines and State to potentially help out
in a 'thirds' cost-sharing arrangement.

Gosh, it seems quite odd that someone who is supposedly so "greedy" is
having significant problems in a one-time raising of an amount of cash
that is less than the typical weekly gross revenues of *each* of the
typical cruise ship that visits them every day.


-hh

Well you wouldn't want to give up that yearly stipend that Alaska sends to
all of it's residents each year would you?
Jim