Boycott Starbucks! (sponsoring seattle tax revolt!)

[E_Zapata]

Boycott Starbucks. Seattle is trying to pass a .10 tax on every espresso to go directly to school funding. Starbucks sponsored a modern day tea party tax protest (costumes, wagons and all - a parade of sorts) to protest the tax.

If people can fork out $3.75 a day, five days a week, 20+ days a month -- they can throw in .10 to pay for their schools. If that .10 is going to break them, there is a problem.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/projo/index.jsp?epi-content=GENERIC&newsId=20030905005279&headlineSearchConfigBO=1062414000000%201063070196000%20%20groupByDate%20%201%207%201062414000000%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%201016198%20true%20true%20&newsLang=en&beanID=1670938466&viewID=news_view

A group of coffee roasters, espresso bar owners and loyal espresso consumers from Seattle are planning an I-77 tax revolt similar to the Boston Tea Party. The event will include a symbolic dumping of coffee into Green Lake similar to the Boston Tea Party of 1773 (the burlap bags will be retrieved at the end of the revolt). Initiative 77, also known as the latte tax, would boost funding for early childhood learning, day care and other programs for at-risk and low-income youth by adding 10 cents to each espresso drink sold by coffee shops citywide.

Coffee purveyors have grown weary of the contention that a "luxury tax" should be placed on a coffee drinker's daily imbibing. In turn, a group of coffee vendors is staging a revolt and march against the tax that will begin at Zoka Coffee House and culminate at Green Lake just north of downtown Seattle where the burlap bags will be thrown into the lake.

[Drifter]

1. Don't Boycott Starbucks ...

just because of that.

Boycott them because they are charging you $5.75 for something that costs them pennies to make. I have never understood why people would go to a place like that.

Cheers
Drifter

[NewGuy]

5. Don't boycott Starbucks at all.

For one thing the price of coffee just went up $2.00 in one post. For another Starbucks is as liberal as any profit making organization in the world. A 'cup of coffee' can be made for very little money indeed, however, a cup custom made for you out of fresh roasted, fresh ground beans and filtered water is a diferent matter.

Also, coffee is my personal drug of choice (without caffiene in the morning I can barely function) and I hate to see the price get even higher.


:toast: with the brown stuff.

[E_Zapata]

9. sorry, but are you aware of the crisis for latin american coffee workers

The production of coffee has become a multinnational corp affair -- latin americans are working for slave wages -- if they get work. They have had to sell their coffee farms. Many latin americans have had to come to the US to find work - and they are faced with the US refusal to improve immigration laws.

It is just a mess.

Starbucks is an evil corporation - no different than Monsanto and other agricultural corps.

While that latte of yours goes up in price exhorbitantly - the price for a bag of coffee bought by Starbucks down south goes down.

Until we have a progressive tax structure in the US, we *have* to find tax monies where the money is. Make your coffee at home for pennies if .10 is going to break you at starbucks. (and go organic, you will live longer).

As for the idea that taxing DIAPERS to pay for schools. I just lost my Mocha Chai on my keyboard. Folks here are against a luxury tax for a non-essential luxury item, but would support a tax on an absolute necessity? wow.......that is right along the lines of the freepers saying, "if you have a bunch of kids - we shouldn't have to pay to educate them. No get out of my way, I need to find two parking spots to accomodate my Expedition!"

[Heddi]

18. Are you insane?

we pay taxes on 'absolute necessities' in the form of sales tax. In the form of hotel tax. In the form of car tax and property tax and other taxes on 'necessities' like that (unless you consider driving a car when you live 50 miles out of city limits to be a 'luxury').

Impliment a sales tax on diapers. EVERYONE WHO BUYS DIAPERS WILL HAVE A CHILD IN SCHOOL AT SOME POINT----I'm not saying to do away with any funds that go to schools from property taxes and ONLY support them on diapers, school supplies, etc----but obviously there's a budgeting shortfall when it comes to schools, no? If not, then there's no need to tax espressos.

If there *IS* a shorfall in revenue, then go to the source and tax THOSE people.

Kind of like how I drive my car, and I have to pay for tabs and insurance every year.

Is that "unfairly" targeting me because I drive a car? Hell no. I drive a car. I use the roads. I put wear and tear on the roads more than a bicyclist or pedestrian would. Therefore, I *SHOULD* have to pay for road repair and maintenance and widening and expansion.

I mean for god's sake--parents just got a tax "refund" this year that totally bypassed single and married people with NO children----

I'm not anti-children---I'm anti-stupid tax.

People need $$ to fund schools. The majority of people who drink latte's and espressos and mocha's aren't what would be considered 'poor'.

The majority of people in seattle with children aren't what you would consider 'poor' either---why not have THOSE people pay for THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION by implimenting a tax on all products that are primarily used by children---again---crayons, pencils, erasers, folders,---hell---just put a $0.10 tax on anything sold at Office Depot....

And I spend more in a month at office Depot than I have at Starbux in 3 years.

And On edit---

You seem to have this misconception that everyone who drinks espresso-type drinks gets them from Starbux.

Hardly.

I've been to starbux exactly TWO TIMES since I've moved to Seattle. I've got lifelong seattle resident friends who have NEVER gone to starbux.

EVERYONE I know---and i say that without exception---refuses to buy overpriced, badly-made coffee from the likes of Starbux, Tullys, Seattle's Best Coffee---we prefer to go to locally owned, small business-coffee stores where the owner is the barista and they know you by name and can provide much BETTER coffee at 1/10th the price for 2x's the size.

Starbux won't be hurt by this measure, but Three Gal's Coffee will. And Pacific Drugs will. and so will the other, autonomous, independent coffee stores. THOSE are the victims of this tax. Not Children. Not Starbucks, and not your imaginary yuppie who drinks $1000 a month worth of coffee.

[NewGuy]

19. I'm with you!!

I make my own coffee starting with raw beans and a small home roaster. But I also believe that taxes need to be more reasonably assigned. Taxing each little item a diferent amount adds to the overhead more than it adds to revenue.

We at least realize that there are victims of taxation if we target groups. The tobacco tax (and I don't smoke and favor stopping smoking) was a total failure. Almost none of the money raised by the tax and the law suit was ever used to help defray medical expenses. Most went right in the general fund. If that is what is going to happen then just whack another few cents on everybodies property tax or up the retail sales tax a penny and be done with it.

[Hanuman]

2. I stopped drinking "Charbux" a long time ago...

Not because of any tax issue- I just think it's bad coffee. Too bitter.

[Heddi]

3. I'm ambivalent about the tax itself (being a seattlelite)

But I wonder why cigarettes can be taxed (because of the drain cigarette smokers will (and do) put on public health services), but things like diapers, crayons, markers, poster board, and other school supplies aren't taxed to fund childhood education.

Cigarette tax is in place to basically 'punish' cigarette smokers.

I'm not saying in any way that parents should be 'punished' for having a child---not saying that at all----but why is one product taxed because of it's drain on resouces, but others aren't?

Tax the diapers, the school supplies, the uniforms, and other things that are primarily used by children and bought by parents of children and see what kind of money is generated by and make up any additional revenue by taxing latte's, etc.

This may be incidental, but I heard on both local news and CNN the other day that the reason that coffee drinks are being taxed is because people in seattle don't drink enough alcoholic beverages in bars and restaurants to tax those sales.

[Hanuman]

6. It's called a "sin" tax, Heddi...

and the definition of "sin" keeps getting tweaked when new taxes are desired. Coffee is now a sin, burgers and fries are in the crosshairs, maybe chocolate next? I don't know.

Ostensibly the tax is meant to fix the drain on public services that these sinful products create, but in this case, there is no pretense of transferring cash from the pockets of the sinners into the coffers of the "saviors."

It's just a tax.

[Heddi]

15. well, yeah...exactly

I can see a tax on Alcohol that funds alcohol-abuse prevention programs (is there one? I don't think so).

I can see a tax on espresso if it goes to fund coffee-junkie abuse prevention programs.

but I don't see what taxing Espresso has to do with funding schools.

And BTW---most people I know do NOT drink espresso or other coffee drinks every day, and when they DO drink them, they certainly don't go to Starbux or Tullys or SBC---they go to the smaller stores where you are served by the same person that owns the store, and knows you by name, and knows they can sell a $2.50 mocha that's 10x's better than a $5.50 one at Starbux, Tully's or SBC.

So please (and I mean this for the OP) don't make everyone who drinks coffee's out to be these latte sipping yupsters driving around in SUV's and living in $500k Belltown Condos---because we're not all like that.

While we're on the subject, why not funnell some of the money from SUV sales into funding schools? SUV's cost ALOT more than a mocha does. Or why not put a tax on everyone's monthly cellphone bill, since people spend far more yacking unnecessarily than they do drinking the evil bean water.

Or how about this----years ago, allocate the money WISELY and you wouldn't be in this mess NOW.

Fuck the $30 car tabs---keep 'em at $82 and spend the extra $52 per tab funding schools.

But I guess that's too 'common sense" and nothing gets people in a huff than the thought of rich city-dwellers drinking gallon after gallon of frothy coffee every day, to the tune of thousands of dollars per drinker per month on the demon bean water..... :rolling eyes:

[keopeli]

4. Oh come on...you don't support a coffee tax, do you?

We certainly have financial problems in Seattle, but is the way to solve it a coffee tax? That's just more dumb financing tricks. Demonize coffee drinkers and makers for not supporting our schools?

I'm not saying Starbucks is this wonderful incredible company. I'm saying that funding schools doesn't have anything to do with coffee! Part of the reason that we're in this financial pickle is because we spent so long depending on tax revenue from car tab taxes. Now, Iman is a *^%$ and the repeal of that was throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but that was a bad system.

Tax people honestly. Spend money wisely. That's a government for the people.

Officially, I'm totally in support of finding funding for our schools, but I'm not going to support these strange tactics because they'll be challenged and knocked down and they distort the truth, like who the good guy is (really supporting public education) and who the bad guy is.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. I'm shocked

Shocked that a company would complain about a tax aimed specifically at their customers and almost no one else.

What does coffee have to do with education? Why should Starbucks fund education instead of some other company?

[RobertSeattle]

8. Sorry - Not going to do it

It's a stupid tax. "Cutesy" taxes like an "espresso tax" are just dumb.

[E_Zapata]

10. ok but for the seattlites......

for the near-term until we find a way to fund schools -- it is you guys who will have to contend with the increasing number of high school dropouts and increase in gangs and denigration of your quality of life. Because - that *is* the price for not funding education. Watch out for that gang of thugs on the corner as you go into that starbucks. Make sure you get a car alarm for that shiny car 'cause someone might need to steal your car.

Education is the backbone of a civilized society. Without it - there are too many problems to list.

That's why the dem party is the party for education; they aren't trying to just provide some sort of privilege. It makes the world better.

Starbucks should offer to just DONATE .10 a cup for the next year...

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. LOL

Wow, from specifically targeted taxation to now VOLUNTARY taxation. I'll tell you what, why don't you and your friends just get together and donate YOUR salaries to education. I'm sure you would feel much better.

[regnaD kciN]

11. Uh...it wasn't Starbucks

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/138513_espresso08.html

Although I'm as critical as anyone here about Starbucks, it should be noted that the "Seattle Coffee Party" yesterday had little or nothing to do with them. It was actually staged by a group of small-scale coffee shops and roasters (the coffee equivalent of microbreweries), who claim that the tax would impact them particularly.

[nn2004]

13. Why not just raise the state income tax to fund the budgets?

Most Americans are not paying enough tax as it is. As long as the money raised is used wisely we should all kick in more than we are now.

Taxes are how we fund social programs so let's just raise it to whatever it takes and move on.

[jono]

14. Starbucks is doing right

by opposing this tax. They're not going to be seriously hurt by it, because they can afford to administer it. No, it will be all the little local shops that will suffer the most because of this, because they won't be able to afford new systems to automatically administer this tax.

I support early childhood education, but this is a bad tax. Those who are supporting it should do what everyone else does, and hire a couple lobbyists to go to Olympia and fight the Legislature to fund the programs. I agree with The Stranger, which said that "frankly, it's goofy ideas like this that give liberalism a bad name." I won't go to Starbucks, but it's not because they're opposing this tax.

[theboss]

16. Desperation

What bothers me is the hypocrisy of state governments on the sin tax issues. On the one hand, they want to tax every behavior that is allegedly bad for you. On the other, they are desperate to make money off bad behaviors through state-owned stores for liquor and - especially - through gambling. Every state looks at gambling as the great budget balancer these days. It's quite disgraceful, and I say this as someone who is down about $1500 on his bets this year (Goddamn Miami Dolphins!).

[dutchdemocrat]

17. I would boycott them for the sick Sam Buck Case

Starbucks Crushes "Mom n Pop Shops" By Any and All Means
08/15/2002

http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/081502_fair_trade.cfm

Starbucks coffee has attacked a local Astoria businesswoman-- they say she is guilty of using her own name on her store. Think you own your name? That you can use it wherever you want? Maybe not. Nearly two years ago, in October 2000, Samantha Buck of Astoria, Oregon bought a small coffee shop in downtown Astoria and named it Sam Buck's- after herself. One year later, Starbucks CoffeeR opened a Starbucks store inside Fred Meyers, five miles away. StarbucksR lawyers then served Samantha Buck with a cease and desist order: she must stop using her own name on her store, because they claimed it was causing confusion for Starbucks customers who might be led to believe they were patronizing a StarbucksR store when in fact, they were going into Sam Bucks.

They offered her $500 for the expense of removing her name from her store. Sam said no thank you, and soon thereafter, Starbucks filed a lawsuit. She must rename her store or an injunction will be filed, and assuming a properly corporate-friendly judge, will likely be issued and enforced. If Sam Buck continues to use her name on her store, she can be found in contempt of court, and can be jailed. StarbucksR of course, is under the impression that they own not only the name StarbucksR-which they plagiarized from Herman Melville's Moby Dick without attribution- but also anything that sounds vaguely like Starbucks.

This is the law of "intellectual property", which perversely twists what was originally intended to be a law to protect individual creators from abuse by predatory corporations into a tool used by predatory corporations to destroy individuals! This might just be a tempest in a teapot- except that it is not unique and it is emblematic of the rapidly progressing division of the world into fiefdoms controlled by globe-spanning corporations, each with their own exclusive logos, whose express purpose is to suppress all competition and destroy all diversity in their respective spheres of influence.

This is called "free market capitalism." Samantha Buck has received a great deal of local support and publicity in the local paper- in addition to stories in Portland and Seattle papers and Seattle IndyMedia. Patrons from Portland and Seattle make a point of stopping in to offer their help. She has the will to fight, and a little money. The store liability insurance may help a little- but she is going to need a lot more to do battle with a multi-national corporation.

[western mass]

20. retail sales taxes are regressive

it's an easy target, but look: like sales tax on most retail items, this is just another regressive tax. Raise the income tax and make it more progressive.