why did the latte/coffee tax fail?

[bearfartinthewoods]

i confess i haven't paid much attention to this because i thought it would be an easy win. .10 on a three buck cuppa for early education in WA seemed like a shoe in

wa'happened?

[GCP]

1. What happened? people who are so anti-tax that they can't see straight

Sure it was a no-brainer to you and me. Unfortunately the troglodytes have no brains.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. maybe the voters thought it unfair

to target one luxury while leaving others untouched (why should espresso coffee be taxed, while filter isn't?)?
Can't Seattle use a property tax, or local income tax, to tie the tax to be ability to pay? It works in 99% of other parts of the developed world...

[IndianaGreen]

3. Exactly right!

Voters resented targeting the latte drinkers to bear the burden of the tax rather than making the entire community pay for it.

Good intentions do not necessarily make good tax policy.

[bicentennial_baby]

7. I disagree

The reason they chose espresso was because of the high volume of espresso sales in Seattle as opposed to other beverages. They wanted to make it an alcohol tax, but their study showed that Seattle-ites did'nt drink enough beer to make that fiscally worthwhile. If the citizens of Seattle are so cheap that ten cents on top of the probably $2+ they pay right now is just too damn much to spend on education for children who need it, so be it, but I think it was a pretty selfish move on their part.

[bearfartinthewoods]

4. ability to pay??

like i said... .10 on a three to five dollar cuppa joe seems to hit people with the ability to pay.

[ima_sinnic]

5. I agree

Just seems stingy for the luxury coffee drinkers to get so twisted over a dime.

[TAH6988]

6. Seems like more than the

luxury coffee drinks didn't like it; didn't it lose with like 66% of the people voting against it?

[RoeBear]

17. Interesting info...

...about the non-coffee drinkers voting against the tax. I wouldn't have a problem voting for a tax on some product that I don't use.

[TAH6988]

18. Maybe more people drink espresso than we thought... N/T

[bicentennial_baby]

23. I heard on CNN

That Seattle-ites drink 200,000+ espresso drinks per day.

[Hanuman]

35. Good Lord!

I always get a little kick out of it when folks claim that the voters are "stingy," "greedy," or "callous" when they reject a new tax.

Before we start making blanket statements about the stinginess of the electorate, why don't we at least consider the other side which says that this tax may :

a. Cause people to buy less coffee.
b. Cause some coffee houses (most likely small non-chain houses) to go out of business.
c. Put a burden on the coffee drinkers who can't afford the increase.
d. Put baristas and servers out of a job.
e. Force a reduction in bulk coffee orders from the coffee producers.

A ten cent tax may SEEM insignificant, but I must remind my beloved fellow DUers that there are unintended consequences to any tax. This is economics 101, something that the Seattle electorate seems to understand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Apart from those

who instead spend their money on whisky, or golf clubs, or vacations, or DVDs, or movie tickets, or (repeat ad nasueam).

And what would happen when expensive coffee drops out of fashion? Shut down the program? No, it would be funded out of general taxation. Why not put it there in the first place? A tax of 3% on coffee would be a pimple on the property tax, surely.

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. falling out of fashion...good point

i hadn't considered that.

[imhotep]

9. the overwhelming majority

see taxation as an ethical issue. Remember why we formed this country? Lay a tax and it must be followed by representation.

[bearfartinthewoods]

13. are other luxury good taxed?

isn't their a special tax on yatchs? i thought i remembered something like that.

[TAH6988]

14. There was

Not sure if there still it. Understand it had the unintended consequence of putting a number of boat-building firms out of business.

[slackmaster]

27. That got repealed very quickly

Boat builders moved operations offshore and revenues from the boat tax quickly approached zero. That's always a problem when you try to tax people too much, especially people with enough money to relocate themselves and/or their assets.

[slackmaster]

26. I heard a street espresso vendor on NPR yesterday

He said there was no logical connection between the items that were to be taxed and the purpose the funds were to be used for. I thought that was a good point.

We tax gasoline and use the money to maintain roads and pay the highway patrol.

We tax cigarettes to offset the harm they cause.

In California we tax everything but food because, uh, I lost my train of thought on that one. Better get some more coffee.

[Fla_Democrat]

10. Maybe they thought their current level of taxation

was already too high. :shrug:

Sorry, couldn't resist. :evilgrin:


It'll be interesting to see some of the theories.

[Moot]

12. Why didn't they tax cigarettes instead?

Why didn't they tax cigarettes or start a lotto for the schools like they did in California? Not that it did any good. Hardly, if any of that money goes to the schools now. Seems like most tax incentives always start out with good intentions, but in the long run the money gets diverted and hardly ever ends up in the hands for whom it was intended.

[RoeBear]

15. In Michigan...

...they started a lotto and said all the money would go to the schools. It did and still does. The catch is that the state lowered what they gave the schools from other sources. So the schools didn't get any extra money.

Probably the same thing would have happened in Seattle.

[JHB]

19. Cigarettes are already taxed

Don't know if Washington has a lottery, but it seems likely.

Thoe particlular wells are maxed out; they tried to draw from a new one.

[TAH6988]

16. Wasn't the tax only on espresso? N/T

[Zero Gravitas]

20. People want things, but don't want to have to pay for it.

[trogdor]

21. Because it's STOOPID.

That's why. Why pick on latte slurpers in particular? Did they think there were enough people who like to make fun of latte slurpers who would support it? Seattle is a green place; why not bump the gas tax by a penny? Let the SUV moms pay for pre-K.

Please wait until I have my Nomex suit on before flaming me.

[Johnyawl]

24. Right!!!

It WAS stupid, ill-concieved, and poorly sold. The whole thing was pitched as poorly concealed class warfare: lets tax those yuppie, overpaid, latte drinkers. Well, in Seattle it isn't just the well-dressed, corporate yuppies that drink espresso. It's everybody. This thing quickly became a joke, and the people treated it like one. I couldn't believe they actually went through with proposeing it.

I live outside the city limits, and didn't get to vote on it, but I would have voted against it, and I rarely buy espresso products.(I make my own at home)

And Why, in Washington state we can't spend the gas tax on anything other than transportation.(roads, bridges,ferrys, buses, etc) It's in the state constitution.

[Andy_Stephenson]

31. I agree bump the gas tax a penny.

that is a far better solution...But they need to save that for "Road Building"...as if. We have horrible roads here.

[Imajika]

22. Perhaps..

"why did the latte/coffee tax fail?"

...people felt the government was mismanaging its current revenues.

Tax increases are not popular most anywhere in the USA. People do not go cheerfully to the polls and vote for a tax increase unless they feel the money they already pay is being spent efficiently and wisely and that there is simply absolutely no other choice.

Let this be a warning to those who have the notion that Americans will rally round' the idea of eliminating Bush's tax cuts. Polls might initially indicate that they are theoretically for it, but when it comes time to cast a ballot voters have shown over and over that they do not want to pay more themselves. If our nominee actually runs on a platform of eliminating existing tax cuts or raising taxes, we stand a good chance of losing the election (ask Walter Mondale). Repealing the tax cuts on the top 1% is likely a political winner, repealing most of the rest of the tax cuts is political loser.

Honestly, I believe we are probably going to have to raise taxes, I just hope our candidate doesn't run on that idea. Better to be vague and talk about trying to work within current projected tax revenues. People may instinctively know at some point that their tax cuts might have to be reversed, but for our candidate to openly advocate doing so is only going to provide ammo to the GOP who will use it continually. Don't count on the public to see the big picture, they won't. Outside of liberal enclaves, or in the case of the latte tax - even in liberal areas, Americans will vote down and against tax increases and those who advocate them much if not most of the time.

Imajika

[QC]

25. What do you want to bet

that these same people who can't cough up a dime will be the first to complain when little Meighan and Dakota's school has to make cutbacks?

[uptohere]

28. lots of reasons but do you realize that this was not for schools ?

it was for pre-school and day-care (some would argue that they are one in the same I sent my kid to pre-school and its a little different but not that much). Thats not the same as schools.

Maybe they didn't think that they need to subsadise day-care,
Maybe a liberal city like Seattle isn't so excited about progressive taxation as many liberals/progressives would think,
Maybe its the usual assortment of things like mad at fiscal mismanagement et al.

I just think it was a bad idea and went down in flames as bad ideas should.

[Northwind]

29. I am not an overpaid yuppie

And I live in Texas, but I start every single day with a very very large double shot latte.

A few years ago, I added up what I was spending yearly on those drinks at Starbuck's, said to myself "oh, fuck that" and promptly spent the equivalent of one month of Starbuck's money on my own espresso machine. Now I make them myself (and I do them better than the teenagers at Starbuck's) and save a lot of money. I still get one at Starbuck's or whatever coffee place is convenient if I am out and about, though.

I personally would have voted for this tax, were I a Seattle resident. The argument about taxing a specific luxury is BS, we tax a lot of luxuries (and vices, not that coffee is a vice) ) specifically. CIgarettes, alcohol, etc. As some have said, if you can afford a $3 espresso drink, you can afford a $3.10 espresso drink, and that IS the point. There is no great principle involved in a refusing a 10 cent tax on coffee. Are you going to argue next that the rich are taxed too high in the US?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[TAH6988]

30. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Unfortunately, not many Americans share your Marxian view.

[Andy_Stephenson]

32. Starbucks?!?!?!?

Starbucks is not a nice place to do business!

[Hanuman]

36. Good Lord! part II

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Perhaps you missed the party meeting, comrade, Marxism is dead.

[maxsolomon]

39. marx's analysis of capital is still valid.

its stalinism that's dead.

hopefully.

[Skwmom]

33. I agree with you.

Once you pay 3 to 4 bucks for a drink, 10 cents more is no big deal especially when it will go to a worthy cause.

[uptohere]

37. apparantly you are in the minority

or perhaps it was not a worthy cause. why should I pay for day-care and pre-school (glorified day-care, hey I sent my kid to an excellent one but I'm no longer under any delusions about that) ? thats an expense that comes with children. seems the fine folk of Seattle agree.

[RobinA]

34. Simple

People don't want to pay a tax for something that doesn't benefit them.

Personally, this designer coffee drinker would have paid double that, because I work in a field where I see the difficulties that lack of day care causes. But these days people don't value bettering the community. Unless it's their community and other people are paying.

After hearing about this news on the radio this morning I began thinking about all the day cares the Fed $$$$$ that will soon go toward replacing five story mansions built on the coast and blown away by a hurricane would buy.

[leftofthedial]

38. because Starbucks opposed it

and whatever Starbucks wants in Seattle, Starbucks gets.

[maxsolomon]

40. ahh, that's crap too

i voted agin it & i never even knew what starbucks thought.

seattleites are cheap, but that doesn't mean that they're retarded, too.

r.e. cigarettes; raising that tax wouldn't help cuz NO ONE IN SEATTLE SMOKES ANYMORE. except on a dare.

[cmf]

41. Not simple

One argument against it was that it wasn't a stable tax base - once espresso goes out of style, there goes your tax base. Also, there is another, seemingly more appropriate funding opportunity on the ballot for renewal next year (Families and Education Levy). Finally, it seemed to be very administration heavy - tracking all of those dimes is not as easy as it seems. Despite the prevalence of Starbucks and Tully's - a lot of people get their espresso here from mom & pop stands, kiosks and shops. People don't really like to hurt small businesses.

Plus there was some debate on whether or not the intention was really all that worthy - for a center to get funds, only 10% of it's children had to be from low-income housholds. Many people thought that this was too low of a threshold for it to really serve its purpose.

This is why I think people turned out 2:1 to vote against it. Normally Seattlites are pro-tax for worthy causes.

FYI - I work in Seattle, but don't live there, so I did not vote on the tax.

[SeattleRob]

42. The Perspective from Seattle

There was a lot of misinformation and scare tactics used to defeat this measure. All these stories about espesso stands going out of business was a bunch of bunk. This measure would have caused problems for small espresso stands as far as paperwork and documenting how many drinks they sold. The tax was specifically for espresso drinks (lattes, mocha's, etc..) and not drip coffee.

What happened is most of the establishment came out against it and in my opinion, the news coverage (even from the weekly "alternative papers) was slanted against the measure. In many of the coffee places around town, there were signs urging people to vote no. Unortunately, the people who were so opposed to the measure offered no solution to the problem of child care.

While the measure had some flaws, I personally voted yes. I don't mind paying an extra dime if it helps kids. From what I understand, there is a waiting list of 600 low income children for child care programs in the city. This measure would have got them into these programs and it would have helped get more money to the all so important child care workers.

Most of our politicians from both parties, give lip service about "caring for children." In reality, they do very little. It's never a problem to find money to build a sports stadium for a multi-millionaires, but when it comes to findiong money for kids, there's always a problem.