This is a proposed dime-a-cup tax on Expresso and similar “fancy coffee” style drinks like lattes and cappuccinos that would fund preschool and day-care programs. Proletarian drip coffee is excluded from this targeted tax. Is reaching into expresso drinkers pockets on the assumption they are drinking a “luxury drink” and can afford it, a fair assumption and a fair tax?
How is that any different than taxes on other specific commodities, such as alcohol, cigarettes, and gasoline? Apart from the tax rate on cappuccino being so much lower than those other items, that is.
I for one would love to see the Seattle/Cappucino version of the Boston Tea Party.
For gas it’s mainly (I think) for road construction and maintenance. For cigarettes and alcohol it’s a “sin tax” that goes into the general fund and has the benefit of (to some degree… esp with cigarettes) moderating consumption.
The “expresso tax” explicitly takes money from the expresso and related “fancy coffees” drinkers to pay for child services and pre-school education while leaving drip coffee drinkers alone who may be just as wealthy as the expresso drinkers, but are not being taxed because their liquid of choice is not “luxurious” enough. If you are going to tax served coffee tax it all or don’t tax any of it. Making precious little distinctions about expresso and fancy coffees vs “regular” coffee does nothing but irritate coffee drinking taxpayers.
[hijack]
One of these days, people are going to realize that there is no x in espresso.
[/hijack]
Everything’s “X” nowdays baby including X-TREMELY X-CELLENT X-PRESSO!!
Seattle, the land of the visionary Light Rail, which even supporters admit will not reduce traffic congestion along the I-5 corridor. Any short perusal of a regional map will clearly demonstrate that due to geographic contraints (the Puget Sound on the west and Lake Washington on the east, principally, with Cascade Mountain Range further east) the I-5 corridor is the north-south transportation hall. Thus, any additional transportation features should, in a real world, be utilized to absorb some of that congestion. But, here in Seattle, no… Oh, and this much vaunted Rail, it won’t even travel to SeaTac Airport due to over-budget numbers! Grrr!
As to the latte tax, well, remember, this is Seattle. It isn’t a shoo-in, but as it’s a citywide tax, I say, go for it. We county folks wouldn’t buy it, so I don’t expect to see it on my absentee ballot anytime soon.
Last time I visited Seattle, I booked a rental car online. I hadn’t heard that there was a 100% tax on car rentals (which mainly burdens out-of-towners). Like most people sucker-punched with that tax (which was to build the Seahawks a new stadium–a cost that should rightly be carried by the people who own and watch Seahawks games, IMO), I haven’t gone back.
Yeah, they should tax themselves into oblivion. Tax lattes, tax the rain, and on those rare days when you can see Mt. Rainier, tax those, too. I’ll stay on this coast for now, thank you.
I’m voting for it. But then again, I don’t drink espresso or have children. I’m just a misanthrope, and the prospect of inconveniencing the C.J. Lessig’s of the world is too tempting for me to pass up.
Theoretically. In reality, it’s all just money for the government to spend. Remember how lotteries were going to be the salvation of public schools in so many states? Same thing with gas taxes.
In that sense, it’s a progressive tax. I like progressive taxes.
Taxes on hard liquors are typically greatly in excess of taxes on beer. How is this any different?
I can’t say I agree with the tax proposal, but I really cannot see how a venti iced mocha with whipped cream isn’t luxury item, much less “a way of life” or “basic necessity.”
Out of curiosity, are hard liquors taxed differently according to their preparation and quality? For example, is single-malt Scotch taxed differently than a bottle of some unknown brand off the bottom shelf?
I’m with Audreyk in failing to see how a coconut mocha is a way of life or a necessity. (I also fail to see how it would be appetizing, but I could be entirely alone there.)
I’m not opposed to progressive taxes or funding day care, but I don’t like the idea of singling out one style of coffee over another. Would the “cappucino” in a self-serve 7-11 machine be taxed the same as something with a 17-word-name from Starbucks?
I mean, we’ve already started down the slope, why not just continue?
Gummint’s gotta pay the bills somehow, erislover. This ain’t Libertaria, and it never will be.
I support this tax, I also support $5 a gallon gas prices. All of this is good for the rich and will keep the hoi palloi of the streets and out of the coffee shops.
I don’t like the tax. Here’s why:
How do you define it? Capucino is coffee beans, water, sugar, milk.
So is Espresso.
So is plain coffee.
How do we define the difference of what we are taxing?
The pressure boiler?
You can make a passable expresso in a modified drip setup, same for capuccino.
So that’s a problem. The definition.
Secondly, I don’t think it is a progressive tax.
We’re not talking a luxury item here. Lots of working class people, secretaries and such making not a lot of money enjoy their fancy coffees. It is a proletarian luxury.
The fatcats of course have their own setup for their coffee. They have their nice $300 -$3000 machines. They make their own beverage.
But it’s the workers looking for a little dash of something extra that look forward to the cheap luxury of Starbucks.
I think it sucks.
And yet I’ve never heard you complaining about the beer tax. So somehow, I think you’ll get over it.
Yeah, well around here Yuengling recyclables are $11.99 a case after the tax.
So there.
But anyway, why does it matter if I bitch?
Who does this tax actually target?
What is being taxed?
Do you truly support such an amorphous ill-defined stupidity of a tax?
Why not just raise the beer or cigarette tax a little more?
As soon as I understand what limitations your arguments actually place on taxation, I’ll begin to understand your perception of, “Oh, another tax? No big.” Otherwise, I’m going to take the not-untravelled road of rejecting slippery slopes.
Existing taxation is not a justificaiton for increased taxation. Each tax should be an independently justifiable event since it is, in fact, an independent event. Thankfully this particular tax will be voted on, apparently, by the citizens. It is, thusly, their call, which I think is a good thing. Somehow I don’t think they’ll be swayed into supporting it simply because gasoline taxes also exist, even if they do in fact support it.
But then I’m weird like that. 
Sorry, that was directed at minty. Damn you Scylla, for spoiling my pronoun use!