Seattle Voters Reject Espresso Tax

[Guest I'm That Damn Zzzzz]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1044020,00.html

 

Coffee tax not our cup of tea, says Seattle

 

Mark Tran and agencies

Wednesday September 17, 2003

 

Espresso power today enjoyed a triumph over well-meaning sentiment when voters in Seattle, home to Starbucks and endless permutations of coffee, rejected a proposal to tax espresso to raise money for childcare for the poor.

 

As of midnight, the caffeine-infused residents of Seattle on the US west coast had decisively rejected an initiative to impose a 10 cent tax on every cup of espresso or espresso-based coffee.

 

With 97% of the votes counted, 68% had voted no. A final tally of the vote, requiring a simple majority to pass, is due later this week. Local polls had predicted that 65% to 75% of Seattle residents would support the initiative, but they eventually found the idea too bitter to swallow.

 

The idea for a latte or espresso tax, as it was variously known, was the brainchild of the Early Learning and Child Care campaign, which collected more than 35,000 signatures to get the proposition on yesterday's ballot.

 

John Burbank, the initiative's sponsor, argued that people who spend $3 to $5 on coconut mochas or iced vanilla lattes could afford an extra 10 cents for poor children. The tax would have raised millions of dollars a year for the city's nursery and day-care programmes.

 

"People will be very happy to purchase their tall double latte and know 10 cents is going to the children of Seattle," Mr Burbank said yesterday.

 

But Mr Burbank found himself up against a counter-campaign with the catchy name of Jolt, or Joined to Oppose the Latte Tax. Jolt activists tapped into America's rich vein of anti-tax sentiment by re-enacting the 1773 Boston tea party as they dressed in Revolutionary war costumes and dumped coffee burlap sacks into a lake.

 

"This is just a bad idea," said Cathy Allen, campaign strategist for Jolt. "For something as important (as child care) we should not be finding these obscure silly ways to pay for it."

 

Jolt enjoyed the support of coffee shops, including Starbucks, a pioneer of premium coffee shops when it started in Seattle in 1971. The coffee conglomerate with nearly 7,000 stores worldwide was Jolt's top donor, giving $49,500.

 

The ballot measure, Initiative 77, would not have taxed regular filter coffee, only espresso drinks. Proponents said it would have raised at least $6.5m a year, while a more conservative city council estimate put the expected annual revenue at $3.5m.

 

Many social programmes at state level are running short of cash because of budget cuts designed to meet balanced budget legislation. By contrast, the federal government does not labour under such shackles and can go deep into the red, as it is doing now. The federal budget gap is expected to hit $500bn next year.

 

Opponents of the ingenious scheme, however, argued that it was unfair to pick on a single group, although coffee drinking is a pretty universal activity in Seattle.

 

Jeff Babcock, owner of Zoka Coffee and Roasters, said: "It's a cold, wet, damp environment. Coffee's big, and everyone loves their lattes."

[Ripper 0]

Cheap ass bastards. What is the sales tax there now?

 

"Fuck them kids education, we needs our dime to...well...whatever we are going to do with this dime. Might drop it on the ground, might loose it in the wash, but dammit, we ain't educating no kids with it"

[dubq 0]

It was stupid of them to even think of imposing a TAX for something like this anyways. Anytime someone says "taxes" people only think of the bad. If anything, they should have just had a promotion with Starbucks, where 10 cents from every espresso sold goes to this fund. They could have done this, but they went about it the wrong way.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Eh, I'm on the side of the JOLT folks, their silly theatrics aside. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to get more money for these programs without enacting something like a "coffee tax."

[Ripper 0]

Its a freaking dime. On top of 4-5 dollar milkshakes with coffe in them (really, thats all they are)

 

Yeah, they used the wrong terminology, but for christ sake, the Jolt group raised about 100,000 dollars to fight the legistlation...and they still don't have the money for these important programs.

 

So thats 3-5 million dollars they won't have for these kids now because a bunch of cheap assholes bitched about a dime.

 

"This is just a bad idea," said Cathy Allen, campaign strategist for Jolt. "For something as important (as child care) we should not be finding these obscure silly ways to pay for it."

 

Am i the only one that finds this statement ridiculous.

 

I guess they can always just tax smokers again, since that seems to be the way to solve every problem. Cigs are going to cost 30$ a pack soon.

[MrRant 0]

Sales tax here is around 9%. I was hoping this went through since I don't drink coffee anyways.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Great, so the supporters of this stupid tax will now say if you voted against this you hate children. I loved how the article described this tax as a "well-meaning sentiment."

 

And I'm sure there is NO fat to be trimmed in the state budget, after all every government fiscal budget is a lean mean bare-bones machine.

 

Why doesn't Seattle just up the tax on smokes and booze like every other state/city government does?...

[Ripper 0]

Great, so the supporters of this stupid tax will now say if you voted against this you hate children. I loved how the article described this tax as a "well-meaning sentiment."

 

And I'm sure there is NO fat to be trimmed in the state budget, after all every government fiscal budget is a lean mean bare-bones machine.

 

Why doesn't Seattle just up the tax on smokes and booze like every other state/city government does?...

I having a little trouble feeling the plight and persecution of these people that will spend 5 bucks a day on a latte with whipped cream sprinkles and whatever else the fuck they put on their coffee/ice cream and bitch about a dime.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

People will ALWAYS vote against a tax increase, except for the rare occasion that they want one in order to help fund a stadium to keep their local sports franchise.

[Ripper 0]

People will ALWAYS vote against a tax increase, except for the rare occasion that they want one in order to help fund a stadium to keep their local sports franchise.

Well, its good that people keep their priorities in order. Hey!! Maybe they should let the pro sport team player take care of the kids in a daycare...

 

wait...

 

 

bad idea.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Great, so the supporters of this stupid tax will now say if you voted against this you hate children. I loved how the article described this tax as a "well-meaning sentiment."

 

And I'm sure there is NO fat to be trimmed in the state budget, after all every government fiscal budget is a lean mean bare-bones machine.

 

Why doesn't Seattle just up the tax on smokes and booze like every other state/city government does?...

I having a little trouble feeling the plight and persecution of these people that will spend 5 bucks a day on a latte with whipped cream sprinkles and whatever else the fuck they put on their coffee/ice cream and bitch about a dime.

I having a little trouble feeling the plight and persecution of governments, no matter if it's state, local or federal, that waste countless amounts of money per year, show no fiscal responsibility and come up with ways to nickel and dime people to death (I doubt everyone that voted no were $5 java drinkers).

 

Personally, I think if Seattle REALLY cared for kids they would just tax all coffee products one percent or even a fraction of a percent and have all the funds go to whatever program they were trying to fund with the "yuppie" tax.

 

Spread the misery around, I say...

[Perfxion 0]

Its just a freaking dime. Now if it was getting like cigs: 1.75 for the product, 3.50 in taxes, THEN sales tax, then I can see voting no. But it is for the kids, and its a dime. Spend the extra dime.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

"It's for the kids."

 

God this whole story reminds me of South Park's underpants Gnomes episode...

[Guest Urine Sane]

I guess they can always just tax smokers again, since that seems to be the way to solve every problem. Cigs are going to cost 30$ a pack soon.

 

And people would still be dumb enough to buy em.