Should Carnival reimburse the US?

[atoll]

Originally Posted by cheoah

This is akin to a bus service using the highway patrol for towing, rather than their own fleet services. The US Coast guard got out of the non-distress towing business a while ago. If the cruise industry can't keep their ships running, or get them home when they break down, perhaps it isn't a viable industry. We're kinda broke, and around here the food banks are busier than ever. The people that can afford to go on a cruise can pay the $20 extra into the cruise lines TowBoats US fund.

Of course the industry does not want to pay, that's no surprise. I have fiscal conservative friends that have received millions in ag subsides over the years. Philosophically they don't believe in welfare, but who wants to give up free money? I think it is a stretch that free towing will benefit the working class; it is an industry subsidy. If the cruise industry pays to play, we can staff up the coast guard and pay more of them - or private industry will cover and create jobs.

as far as i know the uscg only arranged for a tow,by a commercial tug

perhaps a better way of generating income would be charging ships passing the gulf of aden a toll,taxing the drug cartels,charging a landing fee for safety inspections at sea etc where do you draw the line,either they are for hire,or a public service funded by the tax payer

[Tortuga's Lie]

Anyone catch the news that Carnival only pays about 1% income tax to the US??

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Tortuga's Lie

Anyone catch the news that Carnival only pays about 1% income tax to the US??

it would pay even less based out of the bahamas or mexico and take the 20,000 or so jobs it create's in the us with it

[Tortuga's Lie]

Yes, the jobs that the cruise line creates are very important, but that's not the issue. It's that fact that they are registered in Panama to avoid paying US income taxes. They have a corporate headquarters in Miami, which makes it very curious. I know that Carnival is not the only corporation to take advantage in this regard so that means that the US needs to be either more tax friendly to encourage corps to establish themselves here and pay respective taxes or they need to get aggressive and close the loopholes.
Meanwhile, the government continues to waste unbelievable amounts of money paying interest to the Chinese..........

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

This could be a great business. Warren Buffet and Goldman Saks will get on board. They might get some really difficult qualifications in place, so nobody but them could afford to qualify as "qualified life preservation servicers" QLPS), you know, like requiring $3billion bonds, and minimum boat and plane resources. Anyone caught helping someone in trouble that isn't a QLPS would be prosecuted. Yeah, I like it, free market solves all problems, this will work out great. In fact, don't let anyone on the ocean unless they have sufficent QLPS insurance coverage, like the great health insurance in the USA, can't live without it!

I wonder why some people seem to asume that private companies will always try to screw your, whereas government of course always treats everyone fairly...

I know if quite a few examples of private organisations (both for profit, and non profit) being involved in SAR and doing quite a good job...

[Kalinka1]

Cost is a red herring anyway. The cash is allready budgeted either for actual rescues or training or what ever. but the tow cost should be on carnivals shoulders for sure

[Anonymous7500]

Back to the original question. No, Carnival shouldn't pay the USCG any money.

The Coast Guard didn't incur any expenses beyond their normal daily operating costs. They would have been involved in training or patrol activities anyway. It isn't like they launched a new ship and hired a bunch of employees to go out and observe the recovery efforts.

Unrelated other than adding perspective, the USCG's daily budget is $27.3 million. The Senator is concerned about a week long operation that cost $4 million or about $500,000 per day or less than 2% of the USCG's daily budget. Pushed down to personal economics, this is similar to me crying about my morning Starbuck's coffee.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Anonymous7500

Back to the original question. No, Carnival shouldn't pay the USCG any money.

The Coast Guard didn't incur any expenses beyond their normal daily operating costs. They would have been involved in training or patrol activities anyway. It isn't like they launched a new ship and hired a bunch of employees to go out and observe the recovery efforts.

Unrelated other than adding perspective, the USCG's daily budget is $27.3 million. The Senator is concerned about a week long operation that cost $4 million or about $500,000 per day or less than 2% of the USCG's daily budget. Pushed down to personal economics, this is similar to me crying about my morning Starbuck's coffee.

+1

[SURV69]

Carnival shouldn't pay and as they said, they help in kind to Coast Guard requests . . . the same as many shipping companies.

Ships registered in America are inspected and controlled by U.S. requirements. Requirements around the globe appear to much more lenient . . . forgiving.

INSTEAD... the U.S. should require non-American registered cruise ships to inform potential passengers of their "record" compared to other cruise lines, including U.S. cruise lines. Any tickets sold through American companies should be subject to a refund if a potential passenger feels the cruise line might be unsafe.

This might go a long way in that passengers would be informed of the odds that they will enjoy a pleasurable cruise or if they are tempting fate.

If the passenger numbers go down, the non-American registered lines might decide to get out of the business or to bring their standards up voluntarily.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

Why provide the service at all, i'm sure the free market would step in to provide life-saving services to boaters. Anyone saved that couldn't afford the rates could just get years of free servitude to the rescue corporation.
The wealthy could pay millions to have their life saved, they would get "boat rescue insurance".
This could be a great business. Warren Buffet and Goldman Saks will get on board. They might get some really difficult qualifications in place, so nobody but them could afford to qualify as "qualified life preservation servicers" QLPS), you know, like requiring $3billion bonds, and minimum boat and plane resources. Anyone caught helping someone in trouble that isn't a QLPS would be prosecuted. Yeah, I like it, free market solves all problems, this will work out great. In fact, don't let anyone on the ocean unless they have sufficent QLPS insurance coverage, like the great health insurance in the USA, can't live without it!

The "value of life" directly correlates to the extent of personal wealth. Only rich people are worth saving. The rest are just a burden on society and the sooner the herd is thinned the better.
It doesn't matter that 90% of all tax dollars come from these poor retched souls, their individual contributions are of little value. We can easily do without a few of them. Spending a million or more dollars in resources to save the life of some low-life worker bee who probably only contributes $20K a year in taxes is clearly a mistake. We have more than enough of this sort of human debris.

[jeremiason]

The cruise ship industry is a for profit business, but using the government rescue servies to supplement their profits.

This became a problem with the off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf... The USCG was responding to injuries on a regular basis and made them contract with civilian air ambulances to lessen the impact of the USCG. The USCG will still respond, but only after the oil companies first responder resources are used.

Currently, the Cruise Ship Industry has hundreds of ships operating around the globe and for the most part are operating on the same routes in the Caribbean and Med during the high season.

According to the DOT, about 57% of cruise ship operations occur in the Caribbean...

So I would suggest they should have medical/support resourses stationed around their normal cruising grounds as first responders, which would mitigate the impact on government emergency services and their budgets.

Instead of each cruise company having their own support vessels, they could pool their resources and contract suport boats for all cruise ships. This would be similar to the Oil Spill Response vessels stationed around the US and paid for by the oil companies.

[SURV69]

That's a great idea..... but who would want to pool with Carnal...Carnival?

[atoll]

Originally Posted by jeremiason

The cruise ship industry is a for profit business, but using the government rescue servies to supplement their profits.

This became a problem with the off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf... The USCG was responding to injuries on a regular basis and made them contract with civilian air ambulances to lessen the impact of the USCG. The USCG will still respond, but only after the oil companies first responder resources are used.

Currently, the Cruise Ship Industry has hundreds of ships operating around the globe and for the most part are operating on the same routes in the Caribbean and Med during the high season.

According to the DOT, about 57% of cruise ship operations occur in the Caribbean...

So I would suggest they should have medical/support resourses stationed around their normal cruising grounds as first responders, which would mitigate the impact on government emergency services and their budgets.

Instead of each cruise company having their own support vessels, they could pool their resources and contract suport boats for all cruise ships. This would be similar to the Oil Spill Response vessels stationed around the US and paid for by the oil companies.

+1 they could probably get government funding,and right off the running costs against tax

[Lake-Effect]

I mostly agree with Tom J. I would add however that if they continue to have embarrassing and well-publicized failures, some of them won't be for-profit businesses for much longer. Bad publicity is probably the biggest weapon we have to get the cruise lines to smarten up. The US could also impose more conditions on cruise operators who operate in US waters, if the problems seem to be getting out of hand.

Originally Posted by jeremiason

Instead of each cruise company having their own support vessels, they could pool their resources and contract suport boats for all cruise ships. This would be similar to the Oil Spill Response vessels stationed around the US and paid for by the oil companies.

Assuming that the cruise industry continues to grow, this seems like a reasonable step.

To the original post... no I don't think the USCG should be a fee-for -service organization. The US economy is not (yet) in such dire straits.

[nimblemotors]

A key point of government services is to increase economic efficiency.
Roads, ports, bridges, etc, allow us to HAVE profitable business without undue overburdened overregulated accounting. Of course in some cases this becomes clearly out of whack, like the oil rigs, or commerical truckers paying fees for road use, etc.
The fishing industry might qualify as putting a disproportional burden and risk on rescue for their profits, but I have no problem with it.
The cruise industry does not seem to me an undue burden.
The senator is just grandstanding like they all do, as long as they keep getting reelected they will keep doing it and not deal with our real problems.

JackB