• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Carnival Cruise company have to reimburse the US treasury?

Should Carnival Cruise Lines reimburse the US Treasury the cost of their tows?


  • Total voters
    20

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't misinterpret this as a bash on Carnival Cruises. I've been on Carnival Cruises and had fun. However, they've had their problems of late. They've had more than one ship break down and have be towed back in by the US Coast Guard. Of course, they don't pay diddly squat for American taxes because they register their ships in Panama even though about 80 percent of their customers are Americans. I know there are business reasons for that. But we the taxpayer then end up stuck with the bill for millions of dollars to tow their broken ships to port. Shouldn't Carnival have to then reimburse the US Treasury for the money that had to be paid to rescue their ships?
 
Don't misinterpret this as a bash on Carnival Cruises. I've been on Carnival Cruises and had fun. However, they've had their problems of late. They've had more than one ship break down and have be towed back in by the US Coast Guard. Of course, they don't pay diddly squat for American taxes because they register their ships in Panama even though about 80 percent of their customers are Americans. I know there are business reasons for that. But we the taxpayer then end up stuck with the bill for millions of dollars to tow their broken ships to port. Shouldn't Carnival have to then reimburse the US Treasury for the money that had to be paid to rescue their ships?

Are you sure they don't? If they don't, I think they should. Boats that need tows into harbors, etc., pay for the service. I see no reason why they shouldn't pay their way.

They apparently don't.

Rock Center’s Harry Smith investigates the growing outrage swirling around cruise line corporation, Carnival, and its CEO, Micky Arison. A powerful senior senator says that the cruise line is making "treacherous" choices on the seas that are costing taxpayers millions.

Video here: Carnival Cruise takes Congressional heat - Video on NBCNews.com
 
The cruise lines do pay US taxes in the form of docking fees.
 
They pay some taxes, but what they pay is very low. Here's an article about that:
Ship Isn't The Only Thing That Stinks At Carnival: Low Tax Rate Stirs Ire - Forbes

Maybe they should reimburse the US taxpayer for their tows. It was there ships whose engines konked out and had other problems, leaving us to pay for their tows.

If you're expecting me to be upset because they only pay a 1% tax rate then don't hold your breath. Any and all taxes a corporation pays come out of the customers pocket so I'm generally happier the less they pay.
 
I think it's a very acceptable position to see that this private company pays for any special services it requests of the collective piggybank (us)....................
 
If you're expecting me to be upset because they only pay a 1% tax rate then don't hold your breath. Any and all taxes a corporation pays come out of the customers pocket so I'm generally happier the less they pay.

So what about just letting them keep that rate under the understanding that if they need tows due to the equipment malfunctions that they're responsible for upkeeping, they have to reimburse the US treasury. Isn't that fair? They're highly profitable and we're their biggest customer.
 
So what about just letting them keep that rate under the understanding that if they need tows due to the equipment malfunctions that they're responsible for upkeeping, they have to reimburse the US treasury. Isn't that fair? They're highly profitable and we're their biggest customer.

Seriously, who cares? It's not like we only pay for the coast guard when they tow a ship. We pay for them 24/7 and this is part of their job. The boats don't just sit at the pier until we "need" them for something.
 
Seriously, who cares? It's not like we only pay for the coast guard when they tow a ship. We pay for them 24/7 and this is part of their job. The boats don't just sit at the pier until we "need" them for something.

I do. It costs extra when one of their ships needs to be towed. It's been costing between 800K and 1 million per ship, and they've had numerous incidents over the past decade.
 
Not up on all the details, but it sounds like Carnival is trying to dump their negative externalities onto the government. We need to accept the reality that companies will maximize their profits without honor by exploiting dubious accounting tricks and general douche baggery. The government should not be allowed to take it like a chump just because a few politicians got their palms greased; the taxpayers are the ones required to foot the bill and conservatives are already smothering the economy with their assertions that the world will end if we don't reign in the deficit.

That means charging them for gas, the mileage put on the tow boats and other equipment, wages for the hours put in by the coast guard's people, and fees for having to reschedule whatever else they were going to do. Maybe the taxpayers should hire some of those slimy bastards that comes up with these sorts of ideas for the banking industry.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't the Fed file civil suit for the funds and expense? Arguing negligence on the part of Carnival; or flatly tell Carnival they need to have their own towing and tug services in the future?

Thought I should edit to label the reasons why: if Carnival has to pay for services to cover for their incompetence in ship maintenance, they will take ship maintenance more seriously. End rseult is a safer cruise line and better services without relying on government to pick up the tab for their negligent business practices.

Pocketbook penalization is probably the only thing that will make them change their business practices.
 
I think they should, in fact, it shouldn't matter where their ships are registered, it isn't the job of the Coast Guard to go dragging people's ships around. Sure, they'll do it, but it ought to be at the expense of the people who they're towing. Anyone and everyone who gets assistance from the Coast Guard or the Army or the Navy, when they go above and beyond their stated duties, ought to get the bill for it.
 
Yes, they probably should. If it was rescuing people off a sinking ship or something, then no, I don't think they should have to pay that back. But if it's just towing their ships back to port for them after they break down, then they should absolutely pay for that, since that's not really what the coast guard exists for. There are (presumably) private companies that could do the job, it seems like Carnival is just too cheap to want to pay for it. I don't think it even matters that they don't pay US taxes. I'd say the same of a company that did. No one should abuse the emergency response system for personal gain and not have to pay for it.
 
Couldn't the Fed file civil suit for the funds and expense? Arguing negligence on the part of Carnival; or flatly tell Carnival they need to have their own towing and tug services in the future?

Thought I should edit to label the reasons why: if Carnival has to pay for services to cover for their incompetence in ship maintenance, they will take ship maintenance more seriously. End rseult is a safer cruise line and better services without relying on government to pick up the tab for their negligent business practices.

Pocketbook penalization is probably the only thing that will make them change their business practices.

I don't like the idea of creating new rules on the fly. If its already SOP to seek reimbursement from commercial maritime rescue expenses under similar circumstances, yes. If its not SOP but an idea that was conceived after the fact, no. This particular case aside, there's something troubling IMHO when government can just invent new and unique rules that don't apply to any other person of entity arbitrarily to address matters after they've occurred possibly driven by emotionalism.
 
I don't like the idea of creating new rules on the fly. If its already SOP to seek reimbursement from commercial maritime rescue expenses under similar circumstances, yes. If its not SOP but an idea that was conceived after the fact, no. This particular case aside, there's something troubling IMHO when government can just invent new and unique rules that don't apply to any other person of entity arbitrarily to address matters after they've occurred possibly driven by emotionalism.

Proof of negligence would toss those concerns out the window. The best way to do it in my opinion is to subject their ships to extra scrutiny and be a stickler on fines until they start cleaning up their act. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
 
carnival cruises are for the working class

it's a jumble of the emperor's new clothes on every level it offers.

if you like the thing , you don;t know better.


and it comes as no surprise your present government would even consider subsidizing these people in any way
 
Let's charge for the Coast Guard to go out looking for kids swept out to sea, lost boaters, missing planes, and medical evacuation flights in remote Alaska as well :roll:
 
Let's charge for the Coast Guard to go out looking for kids swept out to sea, lost boaters, missing planes, and medical evacuation flights in remote Alaska as well :roll:

See above post: pay particular attention to the word negligence.
 
See above post: pay particular attention to the word negligence.

doesn't change my opinion on the subject. We shouldn't be charging to rescue vehicles/people in distress regardless of how they end up in distress unless we charge all people, not that I think we should charge any people. We are aiding the people on board more so than the people in the boardroom.
 
doesn't change my opinion on the subject. We shouldn't be charging to rescue vehicles/people in distress regardless of how they end up in distress unless we charge all people, not that I think we should charge any people. We are aiding the people on board more so than the people in the boardroom.

Oh for pete's sake. Charge the company. IF you can prove they are negligent about maritime safety and the people under their care. Im not saying make it extra legal---make it legal. Through a court of law with public findings about just exactly how much or little care Carnival is paying to public safety and ship maintenance.

There are multiple ways to get Carnival to shape up.
 
Oh for pete's sake. Charge the company. IF you can prove they are negligent about maritime safety and the people under their care. Im not saying make it extra legal---make it legal. Through a court of law with public findings about just exactly how much or little care Carnival is paying to public safety and ship maintenance.

There are multiple ways to get Carnival to shape up.

Don't let them in US waters. Otherwise, save the passengers. If you want to say "for Pete's sake" you might want to consider that members of the USCG are going to be working and getting paid whether we save them or they are sitting around watching Keeping Up With the Kardashians and the fuel costs are already budgeted in and then offset somewhere else if need be, rendering the true cost of the rescue v. what it would have cost for the same people, gas, etc without the rescue virtually a wash.
 
Back
Top Bottom