Don't bail out the cruise industry

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
31,116
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Carnival Corporation is incorporated in Panama. Royal Caribbean is incorporated in Liberia. Norwegian Cruise Line is incorporated in Bermuda.
Click to expand...
They pay basically zero federal income tax. With all of that in mind, it shouldn’t surprise many people that these big cruise companies essentially pay no federal income tax in the US.
Click to expand...

Don’t bail out the cruise industry

They chose to strategically incorporate in tax havens to avoid paying taxes on their profits in the US. Therefore, the US taxpayer should not be bailing out these non-taxpayers.
 
Puppycow said:
Don’t bail out the cruise industry

They chose to strategically incorporate in tax havens to avoid paying taxes on their profits in the US. Therefore, the US taxpayer should not be bailing out these non-taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Corporations have a legal and fiduciary duty to do the best for their shareholders. Doing any less is negligent. No company is going to pay more tax than is legal. Talk to Congress if you want that changed. Don't demonize companies for doing their job.

btw, I thought they all had flags from Liberia. They used to. At least they are diversifying!
 
Darat said:
I think you have to be pragmatic, how many USA folk are reliant on them for their income?
Click to expand...

If they are eligible for unemployment benefits they can claim unemployment benefits, if they are laid off. If they are USA residents, they will be able to receive checks from the government just like anyone else. Bail out the employees, but not companies that are incorporated in other countries for tax purposes and don't pay taxes.
 
Sherkeu said:
Corporations have a legal and fiduciary duty to do the best for their shareholders. Doing any less is negligent. No company is going to pay more tax than is legal. Talk to Congress if you want that changed. Don't demonize companies for doing their job.

btw, I thought they all had flags from Liberia. They used to. At least they are diversifying!
Click to expand...

So? If you want to incorporate in Liberia or Panama to avoid paying taxes, then don't come to Uncle Sam if you need a bailout.

I'm not demonizing. Just pointing out that the benefits should go to those who have paid into the system.

It's like insurance. You have to pay the policy premiums if you want to be covered. It's a shared risk pool.
 
Puppycow said:
If they are eligible for unemployment benefits they can claim unemployment benefits, if they are laid off. If they are USA residents, they will be able to receive checks from the government just like anyone else. Bail out the employees, but not companies that are incorporated in other countries for tax purposes and don't pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Employees are just one tier of cruising economics. Keep going... to everything affected. Food, shipping. ports, tour companies, entertainers, etc...
If it is marginal to those industries, then maybe it will be absorbed.

After all, the buggy whip industry had to die. Does this one too?
 
Sherkeu said:
Corporations have a legal and fiduciary duty to do the best for their shareholders. Doing any less is negligent. No company is going to pay more tax than is legal. Talk to Congress if you want that changed. Don't demonize companies for doing their job.

btw, I thought they all had flags from Liberia. They used to. At least they are diversifying!
Click to expand...

And the corporations buy off Congress to keep this state of affairs so the American people can eat **** and be happy about it.

Talk to Congress if you want that changed? FMD that is hilarious.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
By authority of having the cash: you could make the bailout contingent on having a controlling interest.
Click to expand...

Like what they did with General Motors last time?

If memory serves, that was one of the few bailouts from 2008 financial crisis that the government actually lost money on in the long run. But it saved an important industry that creates many jobs for Americans so it was still probably worth it even if the government lost some money on the deal. Most of the TARP loans were repaid with interest, and the government didn't lose any money on those "bailouts" (loans).

Maybe if that's the only choice. In general, the market can take care of these things. Someone will be willing to buy it up in a fire sale from the previous owners for a controlling interest. Probably their creditors. I just don't know if the cruise industry is important enough for the government to take it over. Besides, if the company is incorporated in another country, that adds complications.

The private sector can probably find a solution without the government stepping in. By a solution I mean, somebody will end up owning those ships, and the only thing they're good for anyway is the purpose they were built for, so the cruise industry will survive somehow. It's just that one set of owners may be replaced by others.
 
So there is some sort of morality index which determines which companies to bail out?

Okay, someone explain how that works and who decides?

Cross out cruise lines because of the claim that they pay no taxes and don’t employ US citizens? Firstly support the claim they pay no taxes or employ people in the US. No don’t bother, gut feel is good enough.

Tech companies? Why not. Most of their hardware is made outside the US.

Fast food companies? Evil personified. Give them nothing.

Maybe don’t support any companies at all, so evil US capitalism dies.

Christ moralists **** me.

Saving jobs is the main objective.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
So there is some sort of morality index which determines which companies to bail out?

Okay, someone explain how that works and who decides?

Cross out cruise lines because of the claim that they pay no taxes and don’t employ US citizens? Firstly support the claim they pay no taxes or employ people in the US. No don’t bother, gut feel is good enough.

Tech companies? Why not. Most of their hardware is made outside the US.

Fast food companies? Evil personified. Give them nothing.

Maybe don’t support any companies at all, so evil US capitalism dies.

Christ moralists **** me.

Saving jobs is the main objective.
Click to expand...

They are based in places like Bermuda for the weather.
 
The cruise/noro industry is so filthy, so destructive, so vile in every way, that I wish it would die.
 
Sideroxylon said:
They are based in places like Bermuda for the weather.
Click to expand...

Which other companies are on your no support list and why? You have already decreed that companies which pay off Congress shouldn’t be supported. Name them and explain why they should not get support.
 
lionking said:
Which other companies are on your no support list and why? You have already decreed that companies which pay off Congress shouldn’t be supported. Name them and explain why they should not get support.
Click to expand...

It’s an interesting framing of what I posted going on there.
 
The world could do with far fewer of these behemoths clogging up and desecrating the major tourist destinations the world over and creating climate catastrophes wherever they go. Just ask the Venetians for a start.

Bail the employees out, sure, if they are American. But assist the cruise line firms only if they change flag to the USA, and go to smaller, more environment-friendly, less intrusive ships that are limited to anchoring well offshore the world over.
 
Sherkeu said:
Corporations have a legal and fiduciary duty to do the best for their shareholders. Doing any less is negligent. No company is going to pay more tax than is legal. Talk to Congress if you want that changed. Don't demonize companies for doing their job.

btw, I thought they all had flags from Liberia. They used to. At least they are diversifying!
Click to expand...


Are you sure that is the law in the country they are based in? From what I understand these are not companies based in the USA who have overseas offices, the overseas offices for these companies are the ones in the USA.
 
Sherkeu said:
Corporations have a legal and fiduciary duty to do the best for their shareholders. Doing any less is negligent. No company is going to pay more tax than is legal. Talk to Congress if you want that changed. Don't demonize companies for doing their job.

btw, I thought they all had flags from Liberia. They used to. At least they are diversifying!
Click to expand...


That’s for the ships, not the company.
 
lionking said:
Which other companies are on your no support list and why? You have already decreed that companies which pay off Congress shouldn’t be supported. Name them and explain why they should not get support.
Click to expand...


He made that clear, non USA companies.

I do have to agree with that approach, seems rather sensible, would you expect Australian tax payers to bail out say BMW or Boeing?

Yes support your people who work for such companies but not the company itself.
 
Will Americans who have not filed a tax return for a few years due to being unemployed by choice, or working under-the-table, be eligible to collect their $1200?

If not, why should a corp that has not paid for several years be any different?
 
Distracted1 said:
Will Americans who have not filed a tax return for a few years due to being unemployed by choice, or working under-the-table, be eligible to collect their $1200?

If not, why should a corp that has not paid for several years be any different?
Click to expand...

I saw a study that it would actually cost the government more money to vette the people getting checks than it would be to just give everyone a check. I highly doubt the same can be said of companies which will be getting much larger checks.
 
Sherkeu said:
Corporations have a legal and fiduciary duty to do the best for their shareholders. Doing any less is negligent. No company is going to pay more tax than is legal. Talk to Congress if you want that changed. Don't demonize companies for doing their job.

btw, I thought they all had flags from Liberia. They used to. At least they are diversifying!
Click to expand...

Yes, that legal duty to maximize profits probably had a lot to do with why one cruise line lied that its tropical cruises are safe because Covid-19 can't tolerate warm weather.

Floating typhoid Marys in the best of times, even worse so now.

I don't even see why the US would bail these companies out. They aren't US companies. Bail out any US workers, let these cruises look to their own for support.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
The world could do with far fewer of these behemoths clogging up and desecrating the major tourist destinations the world over and creating climate catastrophes wherever they go. Just ask the Venetians for a start.
Bail the employees out, sure, if they are American. But assist the cruise line firms only if they change flag to the USA, and go to smaller, more environment-friendly, less intrusive ships that are limited to anchoring well offshore the world over.
Click to expand...

The cruise industry ruined the Planet Venus? :eye-poppi

All kidding aside, I'd have to agree with the OP. If your company has discovered a clever but legal way to avoid putting money back into our tax system, then yeah, you really aren't entitled to a bailout by our tax payers. Go to the government that they've paid into, if that gov can't help them, then they sink or swim on their own.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yes, that legal duty to maximize profits probably had a lot to do with why one cruise line lied that its tropical cruises are safe because Covid-19 can't tolerate warm weather.

Floating typhoid Marys in the best of times, even worse so now.

I don't even see why the US would bail these companies out. They aren't US companies. Bail out any US workers, let these cruises look to their own for support.
Click to expand...

the actual problem they pose for some of us.
 
I must admit I'm puzzled by this talk of cruise line bailouts.

They aren't an essential service, and if they go bankrupt, the boats will still be there. New investors will buy them and start operating them, so there aren't significant job losses, except in the short term, but in the short term, no one is taking cruises anyway.

Airlines might be a different story, but I can't see any good reason to bail out the cruise lines.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must admit I'm puzzled by this talk of cruise line bailouts.

They aren't an essential service, and if they go bankrupt, the boats will still be there. New investors will buy them and start operating them, so there aren't significant job losses, except in the short term, but in the short term, no one is taking cruises anyway.

Airlines might be a different story, but I can't see any good reason to bail out the cruise lines.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the criteria are for choosing who to bailout. The popular example is the american auto industry. In that case, seemed likely that after the doors closed at GM, foreign auto makers would fill the market void and the US workforce would suffer from the loss. The bailout was justified to prevent irreversible harm to a large employer of Americans because the industry would go overseas and never come back.

Is the same true for the cruise industry? The cruise industry is inherently non-localized. They take advantage of this by headquartering in tax havens as convenient.

So yeah, let them eat the loss. Either they go bankrupt and change owners, or go bankrupt, stiff their investors, and restructure. The boats will still have value and someone will surely buy them up and resume business, as you say. The boats will always need workers, and they are still going to visit all the popular tourist spots. I don't see why they, or the new owners, won't bounce back once people feel safe to travel on holiday again.

Seems like the people most in danger of getting the short straw are the owners/investors, and that seems fine to me.
 
Last edited:
Economic worth is not guided by moral worthiness. While it's satisfying to play judge and decree which operations and industries are or are not worthy of existing, and which companies are morally evil or morally good, it's not actually helpful in determining what collective action should be pursued in a crisis. Decisions like that need to be made coldbloodedly along purely functional lines. If taking Action A yields better results than taking Action B then we should do A, even if A is bailing out Gwyneth Paltrow's angel communication quartz butt plug distribution and B is employing the unemployed to build shelters for needy children. It's fun to complain about stuff but don't confuse that with actually assessing what should be done.
 
Maybe it has more to do with the customers. If the cruise companies go busy then thousands of wealthy older white people stand to lose what they've paid.
 
The Don said:
Maybe it has more to do with the customers. If the cruise companies go busy then thousands of wealthy older white people stand to lose what they've paid.
Click to expand...

The actual wealthy don't take that sort of cruise on that sort of ship owned by that sort of company. It's purely middle class.
 
I'm not sure of the point of a bailout. How likely is it that people will just return to going on cruises after this? The industry already had a reputation for being a petri dish for the norovirus. We've had I think five ships stuck in limbo while more passengers and crew get Covid-19. Sounds like a great vacation to me. Seems a bailout is just postponing an inevitable decline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom