Why I changed my mind about the espresso tax (Seattle).

[Cascadian]

I posted something like this before but I wanted to be heard lousd and clear. I was going to vote for this thing but I had a last minute change of heart.

The reason I changed my mind? What bothered me the most was that only 10% of the tax would fund the preschools and day care that the tax was intended. That concerned me a little.

The thing that did bug me was I was listening to KIRO 710 AM last night and they announced that the tax was going to be defeated. They interviewed a woman who said she was going to "celebrate with a tall mocha hazelnut latte!" I thought that was a little arrogant. Even though people did not support this, there was no need to boast about it.

Honestly, I do not drink coffee that much and the tax wouldn't affected me very much but I think they can find a better way to fund these important programs. I hope that the espresso shops and stands in town will now come together and start a fund to help the kids as a gesture. It's the least they can do.


John

[stopthegop]

1. why is it the least they can do?

if it was a fair election they owe nothing to anyone on this issue

[Cascadian]

2. I fund I think would be more effective.

Plus the majority of that money would go to where it's suppose to go as opposed to the small 10 per cent that the tax was about. It would be a worthy cause but espresso shops don't have to start it, other establishments and hey even Starbuck's could do something. These programs need help. Unfortunately, I believe that tax would have not solved anything.


John

[jono]

3. Good for you

I saw your "get out the vote" thread yesterday and was a little dismayed that you were recommending voting for it. I'm glad to see you had a change of heart. I guess it's inevitable that we would get made out to be "against the children," but this really was a bad initiative. I bet you're right that change jars in coffee shops and elsewhere probably would generate more revenue anyway.

[Cascadian]

4. Well not so much change jars.

I want to see a broad-based funding program started. If somebody wants to start a tax on something else like a tax on SUV's then I would support it willingly.

John

[jono]

8. Oops

Sorry, I misread your post. Someone else had suggested change jars on another thread. I think that an addition to the sales tax or an additional property levy (the Families and Education levy already provides money for early childhood programs) would have passed. I'm sure that many espresso purveyors would support a more equitable solution than what we voted on.

[SOteric]

5. I believe it was not only a bad initiative

but set poor precedent.

I do not mind paying taxes for a more fair, more progressive more effective government. Seattle is a city which has a proven track record in voting new effective taxes. Early childhood education is an excellent cause

But we want something fair, effective and intelligent for the monies we pay and this initiative was none of those things.

If they come up with a fair, effective and workable solution to the same issues, I'll vote for it, even if it costs me more than this would.

[SeattleRob]

6. 10% Really?

That's different from what I heard on the Seattle Channel (City Channel). I don't remember the exact breakdown, but they said 5% would be used for Admin Costs, 30 % would be used for salaries of Child care workers, and the rest would go to the programs.

I also heard they hoped to get 10 million bucks a year, which would get the 600 kids on waiting lists into programs.

Where did you hear this 10 % figure?

I voted yes on it. Even though it was a very imperfect measure, at least someone was doing something about the issue. It makes me angry that the city wants to spend millions to build Paul Allen a trolly to Lake Union, but there's no money for the kids.

[cmf]

12. This is where the 10% comes from

From the initiative itself:
(h) "Family child day care home provider" means a person licensed to provide
early learning and care services in his or her own residence, and "qualifying
family child day care home provider" means a family child day care home
provider who meets such qualifications as the Oversight Committee may require,
including but not limited to the requirements that: (1) the provider's place of
residence and service provision must be in the City, and (2) at least Ten
Percent (10 %) of the children served must come from low-income families.

Essentially, to qualify for the 80% of the revenue that was going towards salaries, contracts and directly to providers, only 10% of the children they provide for have to be low-income. The remaining 20% would have gone towards grants for low-income families.

Here is a link to the initiative language.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/init77.htm

[4_Legs_Good]

7. I'm a tax and spender, but...

this just seemed silly to me. Plus isn't it kinda self damaging. I'm not a Starbucks fan or anything, but isn't that like saying "Look Washington! We're famous for something. Money is POURING into the state. Jobs are created, now lets sock it to 'em!"

Tax Starbuck's profit, but leave the coffee drinkers alone. They're already getting gouged.

david

Kucinich 2004

[Cascadian]

9. Did anybody hear that woman on KIRO though?

I would love to hear reaction to that woman interviewed saying that she was celebrating the defeat by ordering a latte. Not a very Seattle thing. Downright crude really!

BTW to all non-Seattle DUers. The truth about Seattle being a coffee capital is that this is a relatively new thing for Seattle. Seattle was not the coffee capital until the 1980's. The lattes and espressos were merely from Europe via California and the East Coast! Before then, it was only regular American coffee. Just wanted to share that with you all!

John (A true Washington state native!)

[BonjourUSA]

10. a gas tax would be more efficient !

both for the preschools and for the earth atmosphere

[CentristDemocrat]

11. Washington State is HORRIBLE for business

That's why many companies are leaving. Nothing but taxes out the ass and regulations out the ass. Seattle can't even get a vote through to build new roads.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Oh, really?

Then why did right-wingers in Portland always talk about moving north across the Columbia as "tax refugees"?

[Cascadian]

15. The tax money are improperly distrubted.

That's part of the problem. This is why you have Republican idiots like Tim Eyman come up with these tax-cutting initiatives and the naive public eats that up. Certain Democrats are guilty of this with supporting meaningless pet projects, playing with numbers of costs for mass transit, building stadiums, and corporate welfare. Washington state government have their priorities ass-backwards.


John

[chadm]

13. Yes, on the local news...

they were hyping it up as a great victory for the people...no coverage from the other side. That bothered me a little as well.