
Cafe owners issue a brutal wake up call to Aussies who complain - and expose the untold truth behind your morning coffee
As the humble flat white becomes a battleground in the cost of living debate, many Aussies are questioning whether their daily caffeine hit is a luxury or a necessity.
But those behind the espresso machines say they're being unfairly blamed for broader economic pain and reveal they're barely making 60 cents in profit per cup.
'Cafe owners are not price gouging. It's the opposite. It is not super lucrative. You're working within razor sharp margins,' said Ben Gleeson, Founder and Creative Director at Glee Coffee Roasters.
Appearing on his This Is Money podcast, host Glen James broke down the real cost behind your morning brew and it's a far cry from the image of cafés swimming in cash.
James explained the average $6 coffee includes about $1.50 in raw ingredients covering beans, milk, cup and lid and $3.90 in operating costs, like rent, wages, power and insurance.
That leaves just 60 cents in profit.
'Every time you go to a cafe, if it's a $6 coffee or a $7 coffee – my question is, if it's a small business, are you comfortable to say that $6 coffee, that I would be comfortable with them to have 60 cents as profit,' Mr James said.
He added that cafés were unfairly wearing the brunt of public frustration.
'I really love my coffee. It's a need, it's a want I love it. My energy bill, I've got to pay it. My fuel, it sucks,' he said.
'When they start charging me $6.50, now I'm upset. I think you guys in coffee land are catching a lot of the consumers hurt and pain about the world.'
Jack Scheeren, owner of Newcastle's Talulah and Bowie Cafés, said the last four years had been brutal.
'We've gone from two years ago people being the richest they've ever been to people being the poorest they've been in the last 30 to 40 years,' Mr Scheeren said.
Specialty milks like oat, almond and macadamia are now a huge part of the cost equation, he added.
'The big thing for us to consider, is that most people are drinking $4 a litre milk. Oat is about $3, almond is about $4, macadamia is about $5 and soy is about $3,' he said. 'That is over double the cost of full cream milk and is 80 per cent of the beverage if you get a large flat white or a large milk coffee.'
Further west in Newcastle, Wildflower Espresso owner Ri Bingham said prices have crept up slowly but not because café owners are trying to get rich.
'We are absorbing, absorbing and absorbing and the cost we probably pass on, definitely does not reflect what we are paying,' she said.
'It is really difficult for us to be constantly increasing prices because you see on such a ground level the impact that has on consumers.
'It's been interesting to reconcile the product with the experience and how we can continue to do that sustainably in a financial way.'
Bingham said food prices have soared too – particularly butter, cheese, and bread — while milk has jumped 13.3 per cent, costing 50 cents per coffee. Takeaway cup prices are also up 25 per cent, and lids have risen by 18 per cent.
Her strategy? Sell more coffee to more people, rather than squeeze extra cents from regulars. Wildflower offers a 50 cent discount for reusable cups and a loyalty card with every seventh coffee free.
Meanwhile, Ben Gleeson said the price of raw green coffee beans has more than doubled due to global shortages, droughts in Brazil, and exploding international demand.
'Electricity is up between 20 and 30 per cent, as a roaster, gas is up over 20 per cent,' he said.
'We're also dealing with increased labour, increased freight for raw coffee being shipped to Australia. Even just trying to get coffee onto a shipping container, there's a premium. We're paying a lot more as a coffee roaster to get that product to sell to a cafe.'
He said the average net profit for an Aussie café is around 7.6 per cent — well below the national business average.
'We're not price gouging. We're just trying to survive,' Mr Gleeson added.
Despite all this, Australia doesn't even crack the top 10 globally for coffee prices. A standard flat white here costs far less than in Switzerland ($10.32), Singapore ($8.33) or New York ($6.75).
In fact, Glen James pointed out that the current coffee price has simply kept pace with inflation.
'In 2002, the average cup of coffee was $3.20. If three per cent inflation is added for every year till 2024, the price of a coffee would total $6.01,' he said.
Yet, hospitality businesses are bearing the brunt of consumer cutbacks, with one in 11 cafés closing in the year to February 2025.
According to Creditor Watch, that figure could soon rise to one in 13 cafés shutting in the next 12 months – a warning that if things don't improve soon, Australia's café culture may no longer be sustainable.
Emma Felton, Adjunct Senior Researcher, University of South Australia, said Australia risks losing the coffee culture that most of us love.
'For many people coffee is a fundamental part of everyday life, a marker of livability. Unlike wine or other alcohol, coffee is not considered a luxury or even a treat, where one might expect to pay a little more, or reduce consumption when times are economically tough. We anchor on familiar prices.
'Because of this, it really hurts cafe owners to put their prices up. In touch with their customer base almost every day, they're acutely aware of how much inflation can hurt.
'When cafe owners put up their prices, we often rush to accuse them of selfishness or profiteering - but they're often just trying to survive.
'Given the quality of our coffee and its global reputation, it shouldn't surprise us if we're soon asked to pay a little bit more for our daily brew.
'If we are, we should afford the people who create one of our most important 'third spaces' kindness and curiosity as to why.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Australian court rejects X Corp.'s appeal in child safety case, orders legal costs
An Australian appeals court on Thursday ruled against X Corp., rejecting a challenge to a safety watchdog's demands for details on how the Elon Musk -owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material on its platform. Three federal court judges unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to a notice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant on child abuse material being shared on X, which is incorporated in Texas. The judges also ordered X to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. Inman Grant has driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms including X from December. The federal court case goes back to early 2023, when Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter Inc., incorporated in Delaware, in February that year. Twitter merged with X the following month. X arguments against complying with Inman Grant's order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed Thursday's ruling. 'This judgment confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company,' she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and 'holding all tech companies to account without fear or favor, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia.' 'Without meaningful transparency, we cannot hold technology companies accountable,' she said. X lawyer Justin Quill said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10% of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. X's media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday. In 2023, Inman Grant's office fined X 610, 500 Australian dollars ($385,000) for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading. X refused to pay and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case.


BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Call to return £21.3m of 'surplus' tax revenue to Manx residents
A lobby group has called for £21.3m of tax revenue that was above the estimated take by Isle of Man government in the last financial year to be returned to accounts for 2024-25 revealed income tax revenue had outperformed expectations due to higher interest rates improving returns for savers and increases in Josem of the Manx TaxPayers' Alliance said the authorities had "already funded everything it planned to" so the "surplus" of £473 per taxpayer "belongs in their pockets".But Treasury Minister Alex Allinson said the money would instead go "back into reserves to pay the bills". In a statement the alliance suggested that the money could provide "significant relief during current cost-of-living pressures" if had the potential to help "with energy bills, grocery costs, or savings" and would not require any cuts to planned government services, it Josem said the money "wasn't planned for" and "isn't needed for any specific purpose"."When government takes more than it needs, it should give it back," he added. 'Long-term plan' Responding to the call, Allinson said it would be "easy for a treasury minister to have giveaways" but he was "not minded to do that".He argued that the department had already "put money in working people's pockets" by increasing child benefit thresholds and personal allowances, and changing national insurance thresholds in the 2025-26 minister confirmed the department planned to "use this extra to reduce the amount were going to have to take out of reserves" in on the data, he said the government had been "spending more money on services than it had been bringing in over the last decade" so the money would help to "balance that out".Allinson said the Treasury was also looking to control public sending by working with departments to bring them in on budget, with the only overspend in the previous year being at the Department of Health and Social Care through Manx aims to reduce the headcount in public services, the moves could be described as "responsible long-term economic planning rather than short term fixes", he said. He said while it was "welcome news" that the Isle of Man economy was in a "strong and resilient" state, "you cannot take for that for granted". "You have to have a long-term plan to balance the budget and to control government expenditure," he added. Read more stories from the Isle of Man on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC Isle of Man on Facebook and X.


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
As Trump's tariff deadline looms, where do things stand on trade agreements?
The clock is ticking closer to Donald Trump's latest tariff deadline of 1 August, and while the president has been at pains to promote the agreements clinched with some major trading partners, many others are facing the prospect of no deal and increased levies on their exports to the Unites States. Dozens more are caught somewhere in the middle – with no trade deal signed, but as yet no threat of higher tariffs. Among them are some of America's closet allies and biggest trading partners, including Australia, Taiwan and New Zealand. After market turmoil led Trump to twice postpone the implementation of the higher tariffs, the president insisted on Wednesday that the 1 August deadline 'will not be extended' any further, promising it would be 'a big day for America.' However, Trump still faces a potential hurdle in the courts; hours before the new round of tariffs are due to come into effect on Friday, the US court of appeals for the federal circuit will hear arguments on whether the president even has the authority to impose the tariffs. For many of the countries without a deal facing the threat of crushing tariffs, the impasse appears to be rooted in politics as opposed to economics. Brazil is one of the few major economies with which the US runs a trade surplus – however earlier this month, Trump announced he would impose a 50% tariff on products sent from the country, tying the move to what he called a 'witch-hunt' trial against its former president, Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has urged the US president to avoid creating a 'lose-lose' relationship between two of the largest economies in the Americas and said he did not fear publicly criticising Trump, whom he recently called an 'emperor'. Trump announced the US would impose a 25% tariff on goods from India plus an extra 'penalty' for the country buying arms and energy from Russia amid the war in Ukraine. While saying that Delhi was a 'friend,' Trump said the US had a 'massive' trade deficit with India and linked its 'vast' purchases of military equipment and energy from Russia to Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine. Trump has threatened to impose a 30% tariff on Mexican goods, accusing the country of not doing enough to curb drug smuggling. Mexico is the largest trading partner of the US and president Claudia Sheinbaum has previously said she thought an agreement could be reached before the 1 August deadline. Canadian prime minister Mark Carney has said tariff negotiations would probably not conclude by 1 August – but Trump has threatened to impose a 35% tariff on imports not covered by the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. In March, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on cars and auto parts imported from Canada. In June he announced a 50% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminium imports. The new rate would apply to all other goods. On Wednesday, Trump said that Canada's decision to back statehood for Palestine would make it 'hard for us to make a trade deal with them.' US and Chinese negotiators have agreed to push back the deadline for escalating tariffs after talks this week failed to find a resolution across the many areas of dispute. China has taken an aggressive stance in response to Trump's threatened border taxes, retaliating with tariffs of its own on US goods and blocking the sale of vital rare earth metals and components used by American defence and hi-tech manufacturers. So far the US has completed eight framework deals which promise tariffs lower than the levels threatened if no deal was reached, but considerably higher than the rates imposed before Trump's second term began – meaning US consumers may face higher prices if companies pass the costs. While details remain to be negotiated, many of the countries concerned have made considerable concessions to the US. Trump announced on Wednesday that the US would impose a 15% tariff on imports from South Korea – after negotiations that were an early test for South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who took office in June after a snap election. Trump said South Korea had agreed to invest $350bn in the United States in projects selected by the US and to purchase $100bn of liquefied natural gas and other energy products. A deal was reached on Sunday that includes a baseline US tariff of 15%, including to Europe's crucial automobile sector, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. As part of the deal, the EU has agreed to purchase energy worth $750bn and make investments in the US, according to Trump. France's minister for Europe, Benjamin Haddad, said on Monday the agreement was 'unbalanced' and Germany's BDI business federation said the accord would have 'considerable negative repercussions.' Japan's exports to the US will be taxed at 15%, including automobiles, an industry accounting for 30% of Japanese exports to the US in 2024. Tariffs of 50% on Japanese steel and aluminium will continue to apply and the White House said that under the deal, Japan would make $550bn in investments in the US. Products from the Philippines, a major exporter of hi-tech items and apparel, will face a 19% levy. British products will be subject to a 10% base rate, with exceptions for some industries. The UK is still negotiating exemptions for its steel and aluminium products from the 25% rate in force. In return, the UK had to open its market further to US ethanol and beef, which has caused concern domestically. Vietnam reached a deal in early July with the US, its main export market for products including clothing and shoes. The deal will see its shipments subject to a 20% tariff, but a 40% tariff will be imposed on transshipments – goods manufactured in third countries that use Vietnam to circumvent steeper trade barriers. US goods will not face any tariffs entering Vietnam. Indonesian exports to the US will be taxed at 19% and, according to Washington, nearly all US goods will be able to enter Indonesia tariff free. Indonesia had already made other concessions earlier in July, pledging to buy more US oil and industrial goods. Pakistan – facing a potential 29% tariff on exports to the US – said on Thursday it had struck a deal that would result in lower tariffs, as well as an agreement in which Washington would help develop the country's oil reserves. With Agence France-Presse and the Associated Press