Leveling the Playing Field One Latte At A Time
in International. Tags: Public Education.
As someone with a two-double-talls-a-day habit, I am being targeted by the proposed 10-cent latte tax in Seattle. Based on my two-a-day habit, that tax is going to cost me about $73 a year. That is approximately half of what I pay to have my salt-and-pepper hair turned blonde, about two fill-ups of my Mercedes and two visits (without tip) to the nail salon.
That puts things in perspective and leaves me with only one question: Why only 10 cents?
As I make my morning stop at Starbucks, I can't help but notice that the place is filled with people like me. Most of us are there after dropping our children off at school, where we trust they are getting a good education and learning everything they need in order to grow up and succeed in our society. This is a luxury tax. That means that those of us who will pay it can afford the luxury, not to mention the dime. That dime means nothing to me. But what does it mean to the people who get it?
It means improved early-childhood education. It means that children whose families have not been so fortunate will have a shot at the kind of education they need to succeed. It means that the people who work in early-childhood programs will have the training to help those children thrive. It means that, one dime at a time, we might level the playing field, at least a little.
Time and time again, studies have shown that education is the single greatest indicator of future success. In a land that claims to be the land of opportunity, doors are consistently shut on people who don't have the education needed to take advantage of those opportunities.
Yes, our education shortfalls are the result of systemic issues that need to be addressed. This is a Band-Aid at best. But, if I were on the street bleeding, I would want a stranger with a Band-Aid to help me.
Yes, this tax revenue is coming from a source that is not directly related to the problem. But the indirect connection — between luxury and opportunity — is undeniable.
Yes, it may make some extra bookkeeping for the coffee shops. It's a tax, you already pay them and the infrastructure is already in your computers.
The fact that Starbucks is speaking out against this tax is appalling. They will not, nor will anyone else, lose customers. Any customer who is willing to pay $3 for a cup of coffee will pay $3.10 for that same cup. Perhaps, rather than speaking out against it, Starbucks should be the ultimate corporate citizen and simply raise the price of all its drinks by 10 cents and donate that money directly.
At the very least, it could remind us that all of us — businesses and individuals — benefit from a healthy community. That's something it could be proud of. The rest of us, on the other hand, can sit in our corner coffee shop and discuss why it is that in a land where so many have so much, we still have to be tricked and strong-armed into doing what's right to help those who have much less.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Inelegant, and the burden of proof
I hate everything about this tax except the good it would do if it were imposed. Mostly, I hate it for how inelegant a solution it is.
Yes, our education shortfalls are the result of systemic issues that need to be addressed. This is a Band-Aid at best. But, if I were on the street bleeding, I would want a stranger with a Band-Aid to help me.
First, it doesn't scale: a year from now, when there's a shortfall in school funding again, are we going to double the latte tax? Triple it? Then we WILL affect coffee sales.Second, it sends the clear message that funding the schools is, itself, a luxury - it is only as worthwihle as our indulgence to ourselves. Not something we ought to feel good about for its own sake. Furthermore, we know that when economic times are tough, people cut down on luxury purchases - like that $4 latte five mornings a week. So either it's ok that funding for schools will drop through the floor in an economic downturn, or we need to be looking elsewhere.
Third, funding schools is the duty of the citizenry, not the citizenry that happens to drink pricey coffee. If politicians can't convince us that we ought to pay more taxes to schools - via property or otherwise - then we ought not elect them again. But we shouldn't let them off the hook so easily as this.
Fourth - and related to third - imposing a latte tax will make (at least some) people think - well, good, we've funded the schools - and therefore make it harder to raise real taxes later on for the same purposes.
And last, yes, it imposes on coffee shops. Why is it ok to single out coffee shops and not Lexus dealers? Magazine retailers? Bookstores? Gourmet food shops? Camera shops? Bars? Cigarettes? What possible rationale is there for choosing coffee, and not any one of literally millions of other luxury goods?
This last point ABSOLUTELY justifies coffee shops complaining about it. Taxing all people invested in the service - in the case of education, that's all people, or at least all property owners - requires much less justification. But given that there is no relationship at all between education and gourmet coffee, it is for the advocates of this tax to specifically justify why lattes in particular - and nothing else - ought to be taxed, if you want to impose it.
That's my opinion so far, anyway.
I agree with everything you
I agree with everything you said.. which is why it was a band-aid at best. That said, this is an old post - but i'm thrilled if we can open up a dsicussion about a citizenry that actually supports education. A nation that supports education - that would be great. So now what? What do we do about it?