I-77: For latte lovers, a tax too far (Seattle latte tax loses)

[Ediacara]

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

I-77: For latte lovers, a tax too far
And it's not that they're against child care, they say

By ELAINE PORTERFIELD AND MATTHEW CRAFT
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS

In a city where the words double tall, skinny and splitshot are uttered just as often as please and thank you, the thought of paying a 10-cent tax on espresso was going over as well as an iced mocha on a cold winter morning.

Early returns showed voters in this coffee-crazed city rejecting Initiative 77, which had become known as the latte tax, by a 2-1 ratio.

But John Burbank, who heads the institute that sponsored the measure, said it was too early to tell how the initiative would fare.

More at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[Ediacara]

1. WITH 97% OF PRECINCTS COUNTED, I-77 LOSES WITH 68.3%!!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/politics/election2003/results.html

[Atlant]

2. Well, thank God the $3.00 cup of coffee is safe!

Wouldn't want to see anyone have to spend $3.10 on their
cup of fancy coffee now, would we!

Atlant

[bicentennial_baby]

3. Yep

How dare they try to oppress the needy espresso drinkers with their 10 cent tax! The children should just sell lemonade to pay for their schools!

/sarcasm off

[joe mondo]

55. Poor reasoning

>> How dare they try to oppress the needy espresso drinkers with
>> their 10 cent tax! The children should just sell lemonade to
>> pay for their schools!

It's really too bad that there are people who use such inadequate reasoning that this is the only conclusion they can come up with.

The espresso tax would have burdened small businesses MUCH moreso than any espresso drinkers. And of all espresso beverage purveyors it would have LEAST impacted the big companies like Starbucks that could most easily absorb the associated expenses.

Seattle has consistently come up with intiatives for increased tax support for human services, and has a stellar track record of voting those taxes into being.

[rjbcar27]

7. Why should they?

I would have voted against the tax too.

I fail to see what coffee has to do with childcare.

[Atlant]

8. The point, of course, was...

The point, of course, was that if you can afford a $3.00
cup of an "espresso drink" instead of a $1.00 cup of Joe,
you can afford $3.10 instead.

And you can.

And we know it and you know it, whether or not you choose
to admit it to us or even yourself.

Atlant

[rjbcar27]

9. That's not the point at all

it's not a question of whether you can afford it, it's one of principle. The only reason coffee was targeted is because of its popularity. The proponents saw it as an easy buck.

[Atlant]

10. As you wish. "You're not a cheap bastard and you..."

As you wish. "You're not a cheap bastard and the extra $0.10
would truly break you. And when Starbucks raises the price to
$3.50 next year, you'll stop drinking the high-priced stuff."

Atlant

[rjbcar27]

11. IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 10 CENTS!

Why should espresso drinkers exclusively be paying for this programme? What about other luxury items? Another .10 on cigs? .02p a gallon of gas?

As I said, it's the principle, not the price.

[Atlant]

14. When it's about the money, it's always "about the principle".

(I've said my piece; you can have the last word.)

[SOteric]

42. You don't live in Seattle, and you obviously no nothing of this tax

Maybe you just can't resist making value judgements about issues on which you're under-informed.

[Atlant]

44. Right on one, wrong on the other.

> You don't live in Seattle, and you obviously no nothing of this tax"
> Maybe you just can't resist making value judgements about issues on
> which you're under-informed.

Right on the first count, wrong on the second.

I understand perfectly well what the proposed tax was going to cost
and upon precisely what items it was going to be charged.

I also read a complaint here in this thread that you Seattleites are
the most "over-taxed" people around; this strikes me as curious when
I also read that you currently have no sales tax on prepared food or
beverages.

Here in Mass, we pay a 5% "old folks" tax on such items, so our $3.00
cup of fancy joe would cost $3.15. Back home in NH, the "Rooms and
Meals" tax is 8% so you'd pay $3.24.

Yeah, you've obviously got it really tough there in Seattle. I can
definitely see where that extra dime would have crushed your economy.

Atlant

[SOteric]

46. We have

and 8.8% sales tax on all non-food items sold. The feeling was that taxing food is unfair burden on the poorer segments of society. Seattle and its environs are a predominantly and firmly progressive and Democratic community.

The tax wasn't defeated because we felt we couldn't afford it. The stucture of the tax unfairly burdened small businesses and independents.

The tax randomly targetted a group unrelated to the beneficiary. (Why not tax burger franchises and amusement parks?)

And again, - the applying a tax simply because it's 'affordable' is a poor precedent to set. I don't mind paying taxes, but I want my taxes paid to be fair, to be effective and to be beneficial against a broad society base.

So again, you don't really understand this tax if you truly believe it's all about the 10 cents.

[Ediacara]

54. also, only *unprepared* food is untaxed

food in restaurants etc, ARE taxed, and taxed almost 10%.

[joe mondo]

49. Seattle IS highly taxed

>> Yeah, you've obviously got it really tough there in Seattle.
>> I can definitely see where that extra dime would have crushed
>> your economy.

Seattle regularly votes in new tax increases to help disenfranchised people.

Despite a very bad economic situation, we voted in increased taxes to fund low income housing in the last election before this one.

We usually add these tax increases to property taxes. And we have an exceptionally high sales tax.

Seattle has some of the best funded human services in the country - despite having a VERY hard time at present.

The problem is that WA state has no income tax - which would be the most progressive tax we could have. So you get regressive taxes like the latte tax - and if it's a tax even Seattle won't support, you've got a problem tax.

[jono]

53. You've been misled, Atlant

The WA sales tax DOES apply to prepared food and beverages (just not to unprepared grocery-type stuff), and in Seattle/King county, there is an additional 0.5% tax on food and beverages (to pay for Safeco Field), bringing the total tax burden on prepared food and beverages to 9.3%.

http://dor.wa.gov/content/citizen/citizn_kingtax.asp

[saigon68]

36. THE MOTHER FUCKERS ARE SPENDING $87 BILLION IN IRAQ THIS WEEK

to blow the CRAP out of the place. They could use some of that for daycare.

This "FOR THE CHILDREN" nonsense obviously pissed off 68% of the voters.

[BiggJawn]

37. Why should the smokers bear the brunt?

Oh, sure, you don't smoke, so let them tax the smokers until tar drips out of them, doesn't bother YOU...

If they taxed your Espresso like they tax cigarettes, you'd be paying StarBUCKS $7 a cuppa...

[Andy_Stephenson]

17. I live in Seattle and own a Business.

This tax would have been a book keeping nightmare. Besides, as a small business owner we already pay close to 6k a month in B&O tax. Which is calculated on the Gross and not the net. When that tax code in Washington State is made fairer...perhaps then I would support this tax. Not until.

[Ediacara]

21. I agree totally GBC

I no longer live in Seattle, but if I did, I would have voted against the tax. It's not that I can't afford 10 cents extra, it's that I don't want hundreds of coffee carts, and independant coffee houses to be seized by the city for "tax evasion" when the bookkeeping simply was messed up. Starbucks, Tullys, Nordstrom etc can afford an army of accountants to keep track of this tax, but the 24yo guy with a coffee cart on Broadway and Roy won't, and could be shut out of business because of it.

[glitch]

35. Exactly - a stealth attack on the small independents

In addition, the big chains can afford to absorb the tax for awhile, the indies can't, so the biggies have an automatic state-sponsored price advantage in addition to their huge bulk-buying advantage.
Until the indies are gone, then they can go ahead and pass the tax on to their customers.
Same old story.

[SOteric]

40. And I live in Seattle, and I'll add

The tax unfairly burdened small business.

The tax randomly targetted the coffee industry to support early childhood education. (Why not target Burger franchises, or amusement parks?)

And third, and perhaps most annoying to me personally, supporters (and people in this thread who don't even live in this city) have touted over and over again how 'affordable this tax is,' without regard to how fair or workable this tax is. So tell me, - do you want your government to tax you just because they've figured out you can afford it? Or don't you pretty much insist the taxes you pay be reasonable and effective as well...? Because that 'affordable' thing is a really ugly precedent to set for a governing body.

[tlb]

4. An indirect sign the party position to abolish the Bush tax cuts

may go over very badly with the public.

Even Seattle yuppies resent and fight tax increases.

[prolesunited]

5. Yes, I think it's a much better idea

to further bankrupt the country with tax CUT and spend Repugs.

[leftyandproud]

16. agreed...this failing PLUS the failure of the recent alabama tax hike..

shows people are not eager to send more of their earnigns to the govt...I hope our candidates moderate their views, at least before the election...like clinton did in 92;)

just get their ass in office, and they can reverse their stance out of necessity

[joe mondo]

50. nope

Most of Seattle - a generally very liberal city - voted against this because it doesn't make sense - not because of an anti-tax sentiment.

I'd vote for a state income tax in an instant. But I voted against this espresso tax.

Under the failed espresso tax, any business that sells espresso and brings in more than $192 per day will have to pay this tax - even if espresso beverages are not their main source of income. These businesses will be required to track the number of espresso beverages they sell, and report this to the City government on a quarterly basis. If the City disputes their "espresso tracking" numbers, they could be subject to an audit.

Seattle voters ALREADY support childcare and related programs through the Families and Education Levy, a comprehensive plan for kids, created by citizens and approved twice in thirteen years. This levy is already in place and is the appropriate way to continue to support children's programs in Seattle. The Families and Education Levy will be up for renewal next year.

[TahitiNut]

6. We the People don't tax ourselves or the wealthy.

We the People only impose our 'democratic' tax burdens on those least able to resist them: future generations, minorities, and low-wage workers. :shrug:

Caffeine and alcohol are our drugs of choice. Nicotine is so last century. :eyes:

The Gini index is over 0.40 and going up. :puke:

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. Damn

Greedy elitists.

I hope a fly gets caught in your drink!

:)

[TAH6988]

13. Are 70% of the people in Seattle greedy elitists? N/T

[Atlant]

15. Could be! (NT)

[Andy_Stephenson]

19. No we are not!

We are taxed to death here. 3rd highest taxes in the country. BTW I don't drink Latte's and such. So the tax means nothing to me except another way for the city to dip into my pocket. I know a city employee...whose only job it is to change lightbulbs that makes $31.00 an hour. We need to change priorities not add more taxes.

[Ediacara]

23. Like I stated in post #21

I think most people didn't want to see independant coffeecarts and coffeehouses seized by the city because they couldn't afford to hire and accounting team to keep track of the tax.

[BiggJawn]

38. Do they have a sales tax in Seatlle?

Do the "24 yo's with their coffee carts" have to pay it?

I fail to see how this is a "bookeeping nightmare"

And if it is, then that tells me that there *IS* a problem with the schools in Seattle.

[SOteric]

41. There is no sales tax on food and beverage items

Only on non-foodstuffs sold.

[BiggJawn]

43. Even "Ready-to-eat" items?

We not only have a 6% sales tax on food items judged "Ready-to-eat" (you pay tax on a deli sandwich, but not a pack of salami and a loaf) but in Marion County, they charge an extra 1% on ONLY food and beverages served in restaurants to "pay for the Hoosier (Oops! I mean "RCA") Dome". Which the eater-outers of Indy have been paying for for over 20 years.

No sales tax on sandwiches....What a concept.

OK, I see why it'd be a "hardship" on the espresso pushers...

[Ediacara]

52. the base sales tax in Washington is about 6%

this applies to all non-food (not including restaurants) products and services. King County (and most urban counties) and Seattle have additional sales taxes added on to that, that make the base sales tax around 8.5% in Seattle for non-food items, around 10% for food items, and around 15% for hotels and whatnot.

The ~10% sales tax is a tax based on gross sales, not on each item. There are no items (except MAYBE coffee beans) that do not have some sales tax. Coffee carts don't sell beans, or non-food items (with the lower tax) like mugs and stuff, so they can simply figure out their 10% sales tax based on gross sales alone.

It's a great deal more difficult to figure out how many of each item you sell when you there's a per-item tax of only a certain variety of your products, and you generally don't have the technology (advanced cash register) to figure it out. The only solution (aside from the purchase of a technologically capable cash register) is to create a running tally of espresso drinks sold.

A running tally is enough of a pain in the ass, but have you ever tried to write on paper in the rain?

The tax is affordable, and the cause is worthy, but the possibility that it can drive small businesses out of business because it's dependant on expensive technology or a time consuming tally is what's BAD about it.

[Ediacara]

51. The food/restaurant sales tax is about 10%

based on gross sales. This tax is a 10 cent per espresso product tax, which IS a great deal more complicated than 10% of gross sales. The tax wouldn't have applied to drip coffee, scones, hot chocolate etc, but only espresso products.

Unless you have a cash register than can tally the different types of products sold (or can afford to buy a new one), you have to keep a running tally of the number of espresso drinks sold, which would further increase the wait, and may drive away customers in a hurry.

[veganwitch]

18. i pay 35-50 cents extra...

because my coffee drinks have soy milk. unfair?? yeah. do i do it anyway?? yeah. cause "its the principle of the thing." im using my money (extra money at that) to support and create demand for more evironmentally and ethically sound products.

i would love to only pay 10 cents extra for the "vegan tax."

edit: also, i pay the regular price for things even when i order things without main ingredients. pizza for one. sandwiches that already have cheese calculated in the the price, etc.

[TAH6988]

20. Is that a "tax"

or a supply vs demand issue?

[veganwitch]

22. i put...

vegan tax in quotes because it is not a tax per se, but it is an extra charge that i have to pay on certain products.

[TAH6988]

25. You mean you choose

to pay. You choose to consume those products.

[veganwitch]

28. hhmmmm... about choice

thats always thrown around like "you made your bed, now sleep in it." homosexuals "choose" to be gay, etc.

i was not born vegan but became one in college. now its an integral part of my diet, philosophy, out-look on life, who i am as a person, etc. i could always starting eating animal products again, but i dont want to, and phisiologically its not possible--even the slightest bit of dairy knocks me on my ass. i shutter to think about what would happen to my digestive tract if i ate a hamburger. but i digress.

we all "choose" everything. the point of my post was not to complain, but to state that for various reasons, people "pay" more for various things and to put up or shut up.

i have chosen to cut my caffiene intake, partially because i could not afford it. $3.58 (with the "vegan tax") 5 days a week gets expensive, especially for something with little to no nutritional value. ive gone to drinking vitamin waters in the morning, especially because my health food store had them on sale. when they are off sale again, ill have to "choose" something else.

as for pizza, i dont eat it that often and will usually try to substitute ingredients when i can to help absorb the cost.

its called you evolve, you use that brain of yours to find different solutions.

that was the point of my post.

[TAH6988]

29. Whoa!

I never said anything like "homosexuals chose to be gay."

A vegan lifestyle IS a choice. I'm not judging it one way or another; however, it IS a choice. ANd if your choice carries a bit of extra cost here and there, who am I to argue with you.

I noticed you don't sound like the complaining type, so just wonder why you call something a "vegan tax" when it is not a tax at all. The Govt is not taxing your product, it's simply a function of supply and demand.

Now, how would you feel, though, if the Govt decided to tax all Vegan products at a 2% higher rate than other "non-veagn" products? Not too happy, I'd presume. Seems espresso drinkers (and others) felt the same way.

[veganwitch]

32. as i pay more in general...

for products ranging from chapstick to shampoo to pasta sauce (organic/all natural/vegan etc.) that 2% real tax is not much different than the situation now.

my only concern would be where the money is going. currently the money i spend goes to small companies, family farms, ethical businesses etc. i consider that a small sacrifice than being able to order something fast and cheap and readily from macdonalds.

the same goes with your situation. if that tax was going towards so viable cause--organic farming, sustainable energy research etc,--i would not complain. similiarly if an extra luxury tax is going to pay for day care, im going to pay that tax or i will find some other form of luxury, or none at all.


and while there may be issues with tax law, the people who have been portrayed during this whole thing really have presented the issue as "coffee is not just a way of life. its MY way of life." (to quote the simpsons) and the tax is such a burden and affront to their coffee-drinking lifestyle. its those "lucky-duck" non-coffee drinkers that will go on not having to pay this tax.

[Nottingham]

24. Now they going after Latte's! Nothing is sacred!

Why don't they tax both Pepsi and coke!

:bounce:

[TAH6988]

26. Gee whiz!

It was espresso! Only espresso! Why don't "they" just tax everything more?

[ScotTissue]

27. I won't cry

I live in Seattle, though I am not much of an espresso drinker. Having fully disclosed the pertinents, let me say that I am not sad to see this tax defeated. Besides being a book-keeping nightmare for small owners (and Seattle crawls with very, very small coffee-based businesses) this is a tax on one of the few industries still performing well in Seattle. We are losing aerospace jobs like its nobody's business, and all the internet "jobs" (minus Microsoft which might be sued into a slump by the EU) long ago disappeared. Our coffee roasteries, Starbucks, and the aforementioned private barristas have real kick in my community, therefore, and I'd be loathe to put this tax around their necks.

Day care is important, though.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

30. Question

I'm curious, did Starbucks support this tax?

[maxsolomon]

33. hell no starbucks didn't

nor did SBC, tully's, and every independant coffehouse. and more power to them.

i'm a tea drinker, and this was just absurd. a demitasse got taxed 10 cents, a triple venti soy with almond syrup got taxed 10 cents, but drip coffee was exempt. WTF? why not alcohol? why not ice cream? why not supersized saturated fat bombs?

this tax idea gives liberalism a bad name. the PAID signature gatherer responded to my polite "no i won't sign" with "don't you care about the CHILDREN?" she heard it after spouting that tired cliche.

how 'bout this? legalize weed, tax it at 500% or more, & give all the money to "the children". funding problem solved.

[Atlant]

34. No -- they gave much (most?) of the money that funded "Vote No" (NT)

[disgruntella]

31. They should have just asked for a Starbucks tax

I know, it's unreasonable, but so am I today. One thing I don't miss about living in Seattle - having to see that logo every other time I blink. And I've had coffee at convenience stores that tasted better.

I'm glad that this tax didn't pass for the small cart owners - but frankly I'm surprised they even exist anymore in that town.

[jono]

39. The small carts still exist

because by comparison, Starbucks coffee is terrible.

[joe mondo]

48. They do!

A lot of people prefer the small cafes and micro-roasters!

[joe mondo]

45. An Alternative View of the Coffee Tax

I live and work in Seattle - I and most of my friends have careers in human service non-profits.

Most of my friends - heck, all of them - are staunchly anti-Bush. All support human services with personal contributions. All support some sort of income-tax in WA state.

I enrolled my own kids in one of the non-profit preschool that would have benefitted from this tax, because although I had ample options for daycare it was important to me that a. my kids' tuition helped pay the way for kids whose families couldn't cover the whole cost, and b. this preschool offered the most diverse student population, c. it is a realkly excellent preschool.

And every one of those friends voted against the coffee tax - and so did I.

It's not because we're opposed to taxes. We'd support a state income tax. We voted against all the Tim Eyman tax rollbacks.

This was a particularly regressive tax - and one in which the taxed product had ZERO to do with the service supported.

It would have hurt small businesses in a city that is hurting already.

And it made little sense - lattes are taxed but drip coffee isn't?

And I don't even drink lattes or other espresso drinks!

I voted against it and I would do so again.

What WA state needs is a graduated income tax. Not more piecemeal that hits the working class hardest.

If you can't get Seattle - one of the most liberal cities in the US, the most willing to tax itself to help marginalized people - to vote on this tax, you know something is wrong with it.

[ForrestGump]

47. An economics-inept person has the perfect solution

Put little child-care donation boxes next to the cash register in every food vendor's establishment.

Easy.

Yes, I am obviously the idiot-savant of economic theory. But you can't afford my consulting fee.

[Selwynn]

56. This entire thread makes me sad...

The reason why nothing ever gets fixed is because everyone always wants someone else to pay for it. "It's not fair for taxes on drinks, smokers should pay for it. It's not fair that smokers be singled out, gas should be taxed. I don't want to pay more for gas, pick something that I don't use. I don't want to pay more taxes, I already pay a higher percentage than 60% of the rest of America."

Sometimes I'm sad to be a democrat. Oh we believe that the government should bring in enough revenue to balance the budget and pay for liberal pet projects like you know... health care, and better schools. And we'll stand on our stumps and shout that loud and clear. But boy, don't suggest anything that might cost ME money, because I don't want that. We don't mind asking the "rich" to pay their "fair share" as long as it is not our perosnal weath that is threatened.

You know what? Let me be one of the rare people to say: I drink Mochas and I'll happily pay taxes for that. I smoke - I'd be happy if cigarettes cost 15$ a pack and 75% of that went to taxes. I want to pay taxes - it seems pretty embarassing to be for taxes to pay for social programs, as long as you personally don't ever have to fork over any money.

I'm tired of mocha drinking, mercede driving, metropolitans talking a big liberal enlightened talk as long as they don't actually have to put their action where there mouth is.

I believe that taxes are important and necessar to generate the resources to create functioning working social programs to provide medicine and education and hope to people who might not other wise have it. And I AM willing to do my part, not constantly try to pass the buck to someone else.

Obviously this is idealistic -- right now money from taxes is collected then horrably misused and wasted. But in my opinion, its still the best alternative we have - to fund our government and then work dillegentily to advocate the kind of social programs and issue we feel are most important. But I want to marry words with action. So quit trying to get out of paying taxes. :D

[jono]

61. Hey, HellOOOoooo!

We already pay for these early childhood programs through a property tax levy, which passes easily whenever it's up for renewal. This would have passed if it were an additional levy, or an additional sales tax on all items.

[Selwynn]

57. Answer me this...

"It would have hurt small businesses in a city that is hurting already."

How?

How exactly does it hurt small businesses? Are you HONESTLY trying to tell me that the change from 3.00 to 3.10 was going to cause a huge part of the market to stop buying coffee? Because if small business offset the set buy increasing their price, and they suffer no market fall off then it would not hurt them ****AT***** *****ALL****

So you are really to have to sell me on the idea that if coffee jumped from 3.00 to 3.10 there would be this huge falloff in the market. :/

[Ediacara]

58. why don't you actually read the thread

instead of uninformed bitching?

[Selwynn]

60. Thanks that helped a lot, genius

Very insightful... good thing we're the education party.

[Selwynn]

62. By the way ....

I did read the thread, which consisted of quite a lot of you, making one point over and over.

Me say tax bad cause 2 hard to doo math.

Good one.

[SOteric]

63. If that's what you got out of it, you don't read very well.

[Selwynn]

64. help me then, oh great and superior one...

use very small words so I can understand

[SOteric]

66. If you're

only aim is in being condescending, rude and smart-alecky, I can't imagine why it would be in my interest to assist you.

In fact, I find it underwhelming that you seem to want people to spoon-feed you the digestible content of this thread as it is. Be responsible. Do your own homework. Try very hard not to make broad, sweeping, baseless commentary.

The answers to your confrontationally phrased questions are in this thread already. If you take the time to read it, you can get the information without need for argument or making a patoot of yourself.

I recommend you do so.

[Ediacara]

65. well...

people make your same uninformed point over and over, and I am correcting that point.

[otohara]

59. Naive Me, I Thought This Would

pass. It's Seattle fer goodness sake - I mean, we're not talking Alabama