First, there is no “x”
Well, that’s because you’re a transplant.
I’ll probably vote for it. When it comes straight down to it, my tall, non-fat, caramel macchiato with extra vanilla habit is technically a luxury, technically… and taxing it is ok.
(But quite frankly, this isn’t the interesting initiative for a week from tuesday. This is)
Perhaps, amarinth, if you took the time to define “luxury” more rigorously you’d ease your mind on the matter?
Is anything short of a plastic tarp and a panhandling cup a luxury?
It doesn’t sound too terrible to me, given what they plan to pay for with it. And if people are already pay $4 for a drink, will they really feel a dime extra? [sub]I wonder if anyone’s thought of taxing cellphones for educational spending yet…[/sub]
In most US states, cigars have a different (and at least sometimes) higher tax rate than do cigarettes. This is accepted as legal. Thus, there is a precedent for taxing a “luxurious” subset of a good higher.
It’s a silly tax. Regardless of how the law’s written, Starbucks will come out with a line of fashionable new drinks that are not taxable under the law twenty minutes after it passes.
And product-specific “luxury” taxes are historically terrible revenue producers. Every so often some bright politican gets the idea of Sticking It To The Rich and taxing luxury commodities. So up go the taxes on imported wine or cheese, or perfume, or yachts.
But all these product-specific luxury goods have very elastic demand curves. What this means that if you increase the price of the good a little, people buy a whole lot less of it. So the taxes end up producing little in the way of cash.
Capuccino, espresso, etc. individually have elastic demand curves. When the price of them goes up due to the tax, some folks will just switch to other types of hot caffeinated beverage.
This is why the government loves to tax goods that have inelastic demand – for those goods, if you increase the price, people only buy a little less. While, say, cigars have a very elastic demand, tobacco products as a group have a very inelastic demand. So tobacco is highly taxed (even though it’s a regressive tax.) The same is true for champagne (elastic) and liquor as a group (inelastic.) Which is why all booze is taxed, not just champagne, single malt scotch, and microbrews.
If Seattle wants to make some genuine coin off this thing, they need to tax caffeinated products as a group and not just a couple of forms they deem to be sinful. Otherwise, their dreams of unlimited education funds will wither when as Starbucks rolls out I Can’t Believe It’s Not Espresso (But Our Lawyers Assure Us It’s Not) ™.
For preschool and daycare?? How about the parents paying their own damn way for these things?
You want kids, guess what: It’s expensive to raise them. Choose carefully. If you need a ‘village’ to swing the financial obligations required to care for your children, you can’t afford them.
Special taxes on top of sales taxes for a cup of coffee? Only in liberal Seattle. Love the city, but the politicians are morons.
They should only tax stupid coffee. Double mocha decaf soy lattes etc.
2¢ per syllable.
Coffee: 2¢ tax.
Grande double espresso half-and-half decaf skim chai latte: $23.98 tax.
Or something like that.
Yes, I agree with nicky. We should tax the lactose intolerant among us. They suck anyway.
I don’t think espresso on its own is a luxury. It’s cheap to make (once the machine is paid for) and if they charge much more for a single espresso than for a small coffee they’re ripping you off already. Millions around the world expect an espresso when they order a “coffee.”
[/coffee addict hijack]
I kind of disagree that people would buy less if the price went up. People still pay the ridiculous prices charged - five bucks for a coffee is already crazy, five and a quarter won’t really put a dent in anyone’s pocket. And if you think your coconut low-fat latte with chocolate whip cream is a necessity, then pony up.
Frankly I don’t understand the mentality that the government can tax whatever and we should be able to present some reason to justify why they shouldn’t.
Who cares if coffee is a luxury? I mean what does that have to do with anything? Why not vote to increase existing taxes rather than create a whole new one?
The idea seems really silly. If they need funds, there are existing mechanisms in place for collection.
Scylla, you got your wish (or close. We generally try not to pollute our water.)
erislover, apparently I need to use more smilies.
Frankly I dont understand the question.
First of all, it is not a real Tax. Its just a proposed tax on expressos and lattes.
Second of all, the voters get to decide. If enuf people decide its fair, then it is fair. Then you can do what California does to any popular proposition, take the proposed tax to court and really see if its fair.
and lastly, my favorite caramel machiatto is $3.75 for a grande. Does anyone think I will give up that liquid version of an orgasm for a bump of 10 cents? No way. Fair or not, I will still buy the stuff, taxed or untaxed. To which case, It would do me good to check and make sure that ALL of this tax money will forever go to schools and that there be a guarantee in the proposal that school budgets never go down by the same amount this latte tax takes in.
If it doesnt, then thats what I should focus everyones attention to NOT how this dime is going to burden my coffee budget.
I’m all for it. A dime a cup is nothing, considering that sales tax on a $5 latte is already 40 cents. This will bring in a ton of money for the city–if you haven’t been to Seattle, you can’t imagine how many coffee shops there are–at very little cost per person.
I don’t drink espresso, and I don’t have a kid, but I live in Seattle. (The only things I get at Starbucks are tea-based drinks, which don’t get taxed.) I think it’s kinda goofy, and I’m not going to vote for it, but I won’t cry if it passes.
Someone on a local call-in show mentioned that it’s an extra hardship for the coffee shops that collect it, because they’re taxed on their total gross sales. Their total gross sales will include the 10¢ fee per espresso drink, so in effect they’ll be taxed on the tax they collect. I don’t know how accurate that is – I don’t think talk radio is an accurate news source – but it would suck if true.
If it does pass, however, I’m going to propose a new tax: 25¢ for each new hardcover you purchase, 10¢ on new softcovers and 5¢ on all used books. All funds go to the Seattle Public Library operating budget.
There’s no problem with definition. It’s pretty clear.
I have no problem with this tax. It’s obviously a luxury item. In our society we have generally accepted that luxuries will be taxed more than necessities.
The whiny little sissies played at it, but they instead filled the bags with balloons. I guess really boycotting coffee takes too much spine for them.
Its also inappropriate. The Boston Tea party was a protest against taxation without representation. This expresso tax proposal is being voted on by the people of Seatle. If thats not representation, then i dont know what is.
It’s the way of special interest groups. Cloak themselves in the trappings of democracy while working very hard to eliminate democracy.
I see this tax merely as gouging the purveyors of espresso drinks. If the espresso merchants could have charged an extra dime before the tax to increase the profit margin they would have. Coffee consumption is discretionary. The end result of the tax therefore is discriminatory and oppressive to a particular segment of the hot beverage market. It is not fair .
Gasoline taxes or fuel taxes in general at least reflect some user pays philosophy. Furthermore, the fuel merchants deal with an essential commodity, and consumption is affected very little with price increases. These taxes are levied on all “road vehicle” fuels and can not be regarded as discriminatory.
Alcohol taxes are presumably levied to counter the social costs involved in allowing this market to exist. In this case also, the across the board nature of this taxation program does not allow for a claim of discrimination. Coca cola is no substitute for a Miller Lite, but a Tim Horton’s coffee could rival a Starbuck’s Latte any day.