Coffee Drinkers Find Tax Hard to Swallow

Espresso drinkers are uniting in Seattle in opposition to plans to impose a new tax on their morning habit. In two weeks' time, voters in the city which gave birth to Starbucks will decide whether or not to agree to a special tax that would be used to pay for childcare and early learning.

Initiative 77 is the name given to the plans for a 10 cents-per-espresso tax which would generate an estimated $7m (£4.6m) annually to pay for pre-kindergarten programmes and childcare workers.

Its proposers, the Early Learning and Care Campaign, claim that espresso drinkers would barely notice the tax and say it would help small children and make all the difference to low-income families in Seattle who cannot afford pre-school care.

But dismay at the idea is percolating through the espresso drinkers, coffee houses and business organisations of the city. An organisation called Jolt (Joined in Opposition to Latte Tax) has been formed and is trying to persuade coffee drinkers to vote against the initiative.

"We feel it's grossly unfair," said George Stoulil, the day manager at B & O Espresso on Capitol Hill in Seattle during yesterday's busy morning period. "We don't object to their ultimate goal but it's unfair to single out one particular group. They go after the easiest target because this is the home of latte. It's more politically motivated than anything else."

Supporters of the initiative claim that polls indicate that voters favour the tax and will pass the measure on September 16. They argue that the "near-poverty wages of individuals working in early learning and care have led to excessively high turnover rates among staff," according to the campaign's website.

The proposers of the initiative claim that "the average childcare provider earns less than a parking lot attendant" and say that the tax would only hit those who could afford it. It would not apply to any business with an annual turnover of less than $50,000 (£32,500).

Opponents of the tax are adamant that it is unfair. Jolt argues that it will hit small businesses, set a damaging precedent and avoid dealing with the real problem of underfunding for pre-school projects.