But as has been pointed out, liquor is taxed more than beer, and cigars are taxed more than cigarettes. The companies that make cigars and liquor haven’t gone out of business.
Which of course doesn’t indicate that we should raise taxes to the point where people are just about to go out of business. Sheesh.
No one suggested Starbucks would go out of business. We suggest the tax needs more justification than “taxes already exist”.
And Starnuts renames espresso as “Italian”. The city would then have to drag everything through the courts at great cost. Simple solutions rarely work, alas.
Of course the tax needs more justification than “taxes already exist.” As with any proposed tax, you should evaluate the government’s revenue requirements, the burdens the tax will impose on citizens and commerce, altenative sources of revenue, the desirability of funding whatever it is they want to fund, etc.
But the implication of the OP was that there was something weird or unjustified in singling out “fancy coffee” products for taxation, and that is simply not the case. Specific goods and services are targeted for taxation all the time. Unless you’re going to take on the rest of those individual taxes, it doesn’t make much sense to complain about targeting fancy coffees for taxation.
This is an argument I simply don’t follow, minty. My outrage against specific taxes in other areas of commerce is there, because I believe existing methods of taxation already exist there, too. If we seek to tax luxury, make our income tax more progressive. Existing mechanisms are in place to tax people who can “afford” it.
I disagree with many taxes of that form, but those aren’t under discussion so I find it irrelevant whether I think cigars should be taxed more than cigarettes, and even so, the same questions can be raised: why? What is wrong with existing tax mechanisms like income tax, sales tax, and property tax? We are singling out a product: why? Why this product? Why not, say, tax briefcases? Or silk ties? I understand the government has to get funds from somewhere, but this does not indicate that we may then arbitrarily tax arbitrary goods under the ill-defined concept of “luxury”, mostly because “necessity” is a difficult case to argue in a debate forum: virtually any product can be a luxury if we set the quality of life so low as to meet the conditions for life.
I wonder: why this good? The answer to this is not, “But we already tax cigars!” because the question is just shifted there again, “Why that good?”
Is it so hard to justify targeted taxation?
I-77 doesn’t rely on the store’s own definition of espresso. From the text:
So, whatever Starbucks chooses to call a particular drink, it’s subject to the tax if it contains espresso as defined in the initiative. Mocha: yes. Tazo Citrus Blend: no. Americano: yes. Hot cider: no.
What I’m not sure about are those big to-go containers of coffee for 5-10 people; do they contain espresso? And would it just be 10¢ on the whole jug?
I also don’t understand why it’s a flat 10¢ per beverage. It seems disproportionate – a tall cappucino containing a single shot of espresso is taxed as much as a venti that contains two or three shots. I’d make it 10¢ per shot, not 10¢ per beverage.
Then again, I’m not voting for it . . .
[hijack] How is it helpful to punish the successful?
If you slap someone’s hand every time they reach for a cookie, eventually they’ll back off on the cookies. The USSR learned this lesson very well. [/hijack]
As for the espresso tax, I think it’s no different from gas taxes or alcohol taxes or other sin taxes: A symptom of the ever-increasing urge of government to not only force us into being more healthy and more frugal, but to alter our tastes in mundane stuff like coffee. That, and the greed of government growing to ever-more-unmanageable levels.
I’d find this more persuasive if I-77 weren’t a citizen-backed initiative that appeals directly to Seattle voters. It’s not something our city council or mayor asked to have on the ballot – it gathered enough citizens’ signatures to qualify.
That said, I am wondering what the impact on espresso consumption will be. It may only be a dime, as the proponents say, but I can’t imagine that it will have zero effect on sales. I don’t expect a big drop, but I expect some change. (Although maybe more people will drink espresso to help donate to this particular cause – maybe sales will go up!)
For what it’s worth, the far-left weekly in town says vote no. As they say, it’s not about Starbucks; with their automated systems, they’ll be able to adjust for and absorb the cost quite easily. It’s the small independent coffee shops that will bear a heavy burden.
The estimated amount to be collected by this tax is at serious issue. Backers say the annual take will be many millions of dollars (<evil scientist> “Millions, I tell you!”), but more reasonable estimates I’ve seen indicate they’ll be lucky to collect a mil five each year.
:rolleyes:
[hijack][sarcasm]
Well then, we should raise taxes on the poor, so they’ll learn to quit being so damn poor. Many poor people today are actually exempt from income tax - why should we reward failure?
[/sarcasm][/hijack]
That’s because you omitted my qualifying statement: “[T]heimplication of the OP was that there was something weird or unjustified in singling out ‘fancy coffee’ products for taxation, and that is simply not the case.”
Beats me, although I suppose I could posit any number of theories (wanting to soak businessmen, for example, or wanting to promote business casual workplaces). But again, so what? If your stand is that it’s silly to tax individual products, there’s no need to talk about the fancy coffee tax as anything more than an example of such silliness. If you’re just opposed to tax increases period, then talk about why taxes shouldn’t be increased period. If you think the kids should be self-reliant enough to take care of themselves, then argue that.
Much of what I’m seeing in this thread (not singling you out here) is just general sputtering about what an outrage it is that they’re taxing cappuccino. Okay, but why is it so outrageous? When you get past the kneejerk reactions, there just ain’t anything special about this particular tax, at least not that I can see.
I am arguing that it is silly to tax individual products on the basis of them being a luxury item. In this thread, that item is an espresso.
Bump: For what it’s worth, at last count, the espresso initiative was losing at around a 70-30 ratio.
There was an ol gov’ner lived o’er the Rockies
And he was Seattle’s king
His people lived off in another country
With an ocean of money between
With an ocean of money between
Etc…
There was an ol mayor lived o’er the Rockies
And he was Seattle’s king
His people lived off in another country
With an ocean of money between
With an ocean of money between
Etc…
What a goofy tax. Stand Back. See the humor. The absurdity.
Besides there is no such thing as a “fair” tax. The concept “fair” assumes an value that can be morally applied. The idea of a “fair tax” was fostered on the american people by our paternalistic politicians who know what is best for the unwashed.
No matter, the people of Seattle have spoken. 
_Dont let 'em see you walking or they’ll tax your feet