Seattle Voters Nix 10-Cent Espresso Tax

Republicandailynew ^ | 09/17/03 | Staff Writer

[bedolido]

Associated Press (Sep 17, 05:59 AM) After voters in this caffeine capital rejected a proposed 10-cent tax on espresso drinks, cafe owners celebrated with beer, wine and - what else? - lattes. With 97 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, 69 percent of voters opposed the tax. The initiative served a jolt of controversy to an otherwise sleepy off-year primary election.

"You can't tax coffee. It just doesn't work," said coffee shop owner Jeff Babcock, celebrating the victory at a downtown espresso store.

The measure would have taxed espresso drinks a dime per cup, with the revenue going to fund preschool and day-care programs. The tax would have been levied on any drink with half an ounce or more of espresso.

Initiative sponsor John Burbank said people who spend $3 to $5 on coconut mochas or iced vanilla lattes could afford an extra dime for kids. "It's a disappointing vote," he said.

Neighbors Pam Masse and Sue Damon voted on opposite sides of the issue.

Damon, a stay-at-home mom, voted for it reluctantly: "I don't think that's the way you fund child care, but something has to be done."

Masse, a drapery installer, said a personal appeal from the owner of her local coffee shop swayed her vote against the measure. "I'm all for helping people, but not when it hurts the small businessperson," she said.

Proponents said the tax would raise at least $6.5 million a year, while a more conservative City Council estimate said the revenue would likely have topped out at $3.5 million annually.

Babcock staged a Boston Tea party-style protest earlier this month, throwing burlap coffee bags into Green Lake. The bags were filled with balloons, both to aid their recovery and because even the most ardent Seattle political protesters weren't about to waste perfectly good espresso beans.

The measure referred to the extra cost as a "luxury" tax, a term opponents disliked.

"It's not a luxury item as far as the culture here," Babcock said. "It's a cold, wet, damp environment. Coffee's big, and everyone loves their lattes."

A coalition of business owners, regular caffeine addicts, coffee roasters and espresso bar owners led by Seattle-based coffee behemoth Starbucks fought against the proposed tax.

Burbank said he hoped the campaign had at least raised awareness about early childhood education: "Now it's time for us to all sit down together and find a robust funding source. If we're serious about ensuring that kids have an equal start in life, we need it."

[BenLurkin]

"You can't tax coffee. It just doesn't work," said coffee shop owner Jeff Babcock"

What's that boy smokin'? Has he forgotten that we owe everything to the government, and that the government is giving us a gift when it doesn't tax us?

[IonInsights]

But...it was for the children?

[Kenton]

But...it was for the children?

Really, this is amazing. It looks like the libertarians outvoted the liberals in Seattle.

[Phantom Lord]

Clearly, these voters hate children.

[Mon]

only if it doesn't come out of their own pockets. I have a mocha a few times a week. If I can afford $3.00 to $4.00 a cup I sure can afford another 10 cents.

[Phantom Lord]

Initiative sponsor John Burbank said people who spend $3 to $5 on coconut mochas or iced vanilla lattes could afford an extra dime for kids. "It's a disappointing vote," he said.

Sane people like myself pay about 3 cents a cup by MAKING IT MYSELF!

[Sabertooth]

Incumbent politicians had best beware in 2004.

There is a populist fury a brewing.

[auboy]

"Now it's time for us to all sit down together and find a robust funding source. If we're serious about ensuring that kids have an equal start in life, we need it."

Why don't they put a "luxury" tax on toilet paper. Now that would be a robust, broad-based funding plan. /sarcasm

[over3Owithabrain]

only if it doesn't come out of their own pockets. I have a mocha a few times a week. If I can afford $3.00 to $4.00 a cup I sure can afford another 10 cents.

Then go ahead and donate an extra dime every time you have a cup. But don't have the government force everyone else to do it.

[CCRider]

What are these politicos thinking?
Tax on anything is for the support of the taxed.
In other words tax on hunting supplies is for support
of things related to hunting.
Tax on expresso can only be used for support of coffee
or related uses. Coffee has very little if anything
to do with day care.
No taxation without representation.

[AntiGuv]

But...it was for the children?

Let them eat crumbcake.. ;^)

[HamiltonJay]

Should have done a better PR job on this, it should have been called the STUPIDITY TAX... instead of the coffee tax.. anyone paying $5 a cup for COFFEE needs to be taxed for being that STUPID.

[Mon]

actually you have a point there. I do donate though :)

[Ronin]

Let the damn kids buy their own lattes, then.

[Muleteam1]

It makes more sense to tax diapers, bottles, playpens, toys and other child-related goods to pay for child-related services? There should be a relationship between goods consumed and government services provided.

Muleteam1

[auntdot]

"If we're serious about ensuring that kids have an equal start in life, we need it."

Let me see. The muicipal government of Seattle thinks so little of children that it is not funding necessary child care. But if people are willing to pony up an extra ten cents a cup, well OK, gosh, we will let the people fund the kids.

What a bloody sham.

Why doesn't someone at the Seattle PI point out this ham handed political ploy?

[Hostage]

Damon, a stay-at-home mom, voted for it reluctantly: "I don't think that's the way you fund child care, but something has to be done."

Damon, get a clue. When you decided to have those children of yours, you needed to think about the cost of raising them.

I am glad this tax proposal failed. It frustrates me to no end that people want someone else to pay for their babysitting and daycare. My wife and I have worked exceedingly hard for ten years to prepare a home for our children to come. I would never take a handout unless I was disabled, and only after I exhausted any disability insurance resources.

[Orangedog]

Clearly, these voters hate children.

Good. We need more of that. I've said it before...there will eventually be a backlash from these "for the children" policies that have been adopted at every level of government. Eventually kids will be seen as something to be avoided because of how they have been politicized and used as pawns to confiscate wealth and control adults. It won't happen in a month or a year or even 5 years, but IMO it will happen eventually.

[Steve_Seattle]

"only if it doesn't come out of their own pockets. I have a mocha a few times a week. If I can afford $3.00 to $4.00 a cup I sure can afford another 10 cents."

The voters were intelligent enough to realize that if this early-childhood program is a good idea, it should be funded by the public as a whole, not fobbed off onto a group (yuppie latte drinkers) against whom the initiative's sponsors were trying to generate resentment and envy. In Seattle, this was a rare defeat for political correctness.