Cash for cans scheme, good idea?

[ggkfc]

How many cans do i have to recycle to buy my yacht?

 

[Value Collector]

Closet socialist?

Isn't the cash for containers program closer to socialism?

 

[SirRumpole]

Isn't the cash for containers program closer to socialism?

It's no big deal for me, but if a deposit program helps a few under-privileged, homeless or charities earn a bit of extra cash then it's maybe worthwhile, even though on the face of it it's double dipping.

Call it socialism if you like, but isn't any form of charity socialism ?

 

[Value Collector]

Call it socialism if you like, but isn't any form of charity socialism ?

Kind of, and I have no problem with many social programs, eg public schools, public healthcare, welfare and other safety nets etc.

But, is encouraging the needy and children to go dumpster diving the most ideal social program? and if its the charitable benefits people seek, why should the weight be put solely of drinkers of soft drinks?

Unless its a broad based government funded charity funded by all taxpayers, I feel charity should be voluntary.

--------------------------------

Why target only soft drinks? what about tuna cans, baked bean tins, bread bags, plastic carry bags, cardboard boxes, coffee cups, plastic cutlery etc etc, we could really get quite crazy with it.

I mean would we accept a surcharge on every piece or aluminium, steel, copper, cardboard, plastic or paper etc, just so we could inflate the scrap price to the point that we can get homeless people to dumptser dive for us.

 

[SirRumpole]

Kind of, and I have no problem with many social programs, eg public schools, public healthcare, welfare and other safety nets etc.

But, is encouraging the needy and children to go dumpster diving the most ideal social program? and if its the charitable benefits people seek, why should the weight be put solely of drinkers of soft drinks?

Unless its a broad based government funded charity funded by all taxpayers, I feel charity should be voluntary.

Fair points, but plastic bottles and cans are a main contributor to land and sea pollution (as are plastic bags), so why not target the users of these products ?

 

[Value Collector]

Fair points, but plastic bottles and cans are a main contributor to land and sea pollution (as are plastic bags), so why not target the users of these products ?

I don't think they are the main contributor to sea or land pollution, most litter I see on land is other stuff, in water ways bottles are more visible because they float but other plastics would make up a larger percentage.

I would think more than 99% are already being disposed of properly any way, so its an expensive tax process to try and claim that last 1%, you also have to offset the benefits by the environmental cost of creating a system of double handling.

 

[SirRumpole]

I would think more than 99% are already being disposed of properly any way

That's a big call, do you have evidence for that ?

 

[Value Collector]

That's a big call, do you have evidence for that ?

do you not think that the vast majority of bottles and cans don't already go into the either recycling or general waste?

if they don't where are they? We are producing millions of them every day, we would be buried in them if they were just becoming litter, sure if you look around any town you will find some lying around, but that number would be dwarfed by the sheer volume that gets used.

I think for every one bottle that gets dumped and makes its way into a water way, there would be at least 99 consumed in a café, restaurant, shopping centre, work place, home, gym, movie theatre and a thousand other places where pretty much 100% of them are binned and none enter the environment.

I mean for every yobbo that walks down the street drinking a beer and chucks the empty in the creek, there is hundreds of other people that drink the beer at home, in café, restaurant or pub where there is zero chance the empty will enter the environment.

----------------------------------------------------

If 99% of containers already get disposed of properly, and we tax them all 10c, that means it costs $9.90 to recover that extra 1 that currently are entering the environment, but who will go into the creek for that 1 extra bottle, when they can raid the other 99 in bins on bin night.

 

[Tisme]

Isn't the cash for containers program closer to socialism?

nope

 

[Craton]

I remember the recycling days of old where you'd buy ya bottle of drink, consumed it and returned it to the point of sale and collect 5c. As a kid I loved it as it gave me the pocket money my parents couldn't. That 5c was great when a packet of Spearmint chewies was 5c a packet. Four bottles got me a meat pie.

For the smaller communities like mine that don't have recycling facilities (so no recycling bins) I reckon it's a great idea. Might cut down on the HUGE amount of discarded drink containers and at the very least, give those that pick up said discarded containers, reward for their effort.

Could help the local charities with their fund raisers too instead of seeing endless containers left on the ground at public events.

 

[pixel]

If 99% of containers already get disposed of properly, and we tax them all 10c, that means it costs $9.90 to recover that extra 1 that currently are entering the environment, but who will go into the creek for that 1 extra bottle, when they can raid the other 99 in bins on bin night.

That's flawed Maths, VC
The extra 10c (or, as I would propose: $1) are not a cost, but a refundable insurance premium. You, the consumer, pay it only once, the first time you buy a can or a bottle. Return it to the point of purchase next time you go for a full bottle or can, and the refund covers the "premium" on the next lot.
It's only when people are too lazy or uncaring about a clean environment that it becomes a "tax". And that, IMHO, is quite justified.

 

[sptrawler]

That's flawed Maths, VC
The extra 10c (or, as I would propose: $1) are not a cost, but a refundable insurance premium. You, the consumer, pay it only once, the first time you buy a can or a bottle. Return it to the point of purchase next time you go for a full bottle or can, and the refund covers the "premium" on the next lot.
It's only when people are too lazy or uncaring about a clean environment that it becomes a "tax". And that, IMHO, is quite justified.

Be careful pixel, don't state the obvious, it is sometimes taken as a put down.

If people would like to see the amount of litter,mainly drink containers and fast food wrappers, that are on the side of the roads in W.A. I will certainly post them up.

If there was a 10cent refund on an empty can of beer, there wouldn't be the ridiculous amount of empties on the side of the road 6 - 10klms out of towns.

If the people could get 60 cents off the next 6 pack they bought, they wouldn't throw them out of the window, they would drop them off at the next bottle shop.

It isn't rocket science.

 

[luutzu]

That's flawed Maths, VC
The extra 10c (or, as I would propose: $1) are not a cost, but a refundable insurance premium. You, the consumer, pay it only once, the first time you buy a can or a bottle. Return it to the point of purchase next time you go for a full bottle or can, and the refund covers the "premium" on the next lot.
It's only when people are too lazy or uncaring about a clean environment that it becomes a "tax". And that, IMHO, is quite justified.

It's a tax disguise as incentives to save the environment and give to charities, and kids, and the homeless.

Like VC was saying, 99%, or practically all, of the bottles and cans are recycled by today's waste transfer stations. Things like these: metals, paper, plastics... these are all recoverable by the waste companies because they have invested hundreds of millions at each site to get and resell them.

Sure there are towns that don't have these high tech sorting, and there are those that ended in stormwaters and etc. but the majority of them are being recycled so putting an extra 10c on each of them wouldn't encourage anymore recycling than it is now.

The kids or the homeless would go to the council or neighbours' bins... they won't be walking the streets or the rivers to get the cans. The average resident would recycle in their recycling bins, and does it more economically as the weekly/fortnightly pick ups are more efficient than storing the stuff and take them ourselves.

So effect on recycling rate are negligible. Could be more harmful as who knows what else the kid or the homeless could catch while digging through the bins; or whether they throw more rubbish out to get to the cans.

So benefits not so much.

Costs... we will all bare that added costs.

Benefits? Beside the kids nad the charities... the most gains will go towards Visy and Cleanaways... Those guys just do the same thing they've been paid to do - just now they got paid a little more for it.

 

[orr]

It's an incredibly good idea... Considering that the British have just introduced a sugar tax on fizzy drinks.
Caving in on this no brainer, that should have happened decades ago, should give CC Amatil and the rest of the Diabetes for all lobby 3 to 5 years, at least, grace to delay the same style Sugar tax in Australia.
At 280 per day diagnosed with diabetes Australia wide, Thats 365x280x3yrs= 306600 or 365x280x5yrs =511000.... Big Phama loves it.
Hats off to Mike 'get off ya'bike' Baird ....praise the lord and pass the donation plate Arfa

 

[sptrawler]

It's a tax disguise as incentives to save the environment and give to charities, and kids, and the homeless.

Like VC was saying, 99%, or practically all, of the bottles and cans are recycled by today's waste transfer stations. Things like these: metals, paper, plastics... these are all recoverable by the waste companies because they have invested hundreds of millions at each site to get and resell them.

Sure there are towns that don't have these high tech sorting, and there are those that ended in stormwaters and etc. but the majority of them are being recycled so putting an extra 10c on each of them wouldn't encourage anymore recycling than it is now.

The kids or the homeless would go to the council or neighbours' bins... they won't be walking the streets or the rivers to get the cans. The average resident would recycle in their recycling bins, and does it more economically as the weekly/fortnightly pick ups are more efficient than storing the stuff and take them ourselves.

So effect on recycling rate are negligible. Could be more harmful as who knows what else the kid or the homeless could catch while digging through the bins; or whether they throw more rubbish out to get to the cans.

So benefits not so much.

Costs... we will all bare that added costs.

Benefits? Beside the kids nad the charities... the most gains will go towards Visy and Cleanaways... Those guys just do the same thing they've been paid to do - just now they got paid a little more for it.

Oh well, just leave the status quo.

 

[sptrawler]

It's no big deal for me, but if a deposit program helps a few under-privileged, homeless or charities earn a bit of extra cash then it's maybe worthwhile, even though on the face of it it's double dipping.

Call it socialism if you like, but isn't any form of charity socialism ?

At last something we agree on.

IMO far better for a homeless person to ask, "may I have your empty drink container", than sit there with a bit of cardboard begging.

Another obviuos question is, what other options do they have? Other than theft or begging?

I would willingly give them my recycling.

 

[luutzu]

Oh well, just leave the status quo.

I remember NSW had this program when we were kids. All the way up to at least early 90s when I was in HS.

Before HS, my brother and I actually dragged a massive bag of cans to school every few months. In HS, we were too cool to do it so yea

So it'd be returning to the status quo, not getting away from it.

All these talks but I don't really mind it. It is a tax and one of the ways friends in high places give to friends owning recycling plants.

Sure beat giving a free park to James Packer's casino and hotel complex.

 

[luutzu]

At last something we agree on.

IMO far better for a homeless person to ask, "may I have your empty drink container", than sit there with a bit of cardboard begging.

Another obviuos question is, what other options do they have? Other than theft or begging?

I would willingly give them my recycling.

Maybe it's not up to the homeless to get off their azz. Maybe it's up to the gov't setting up programmes and shelters to get homeless people off the street and be employed.

And giving them 10c a piece for dumpster diving isn't the solution.

 

[pixel]

Maybe it's not up to the homeless to get off their azz. Maybe it's up to the gov't setting up programmes and shelters to get homeless people off the street and be employed.

And giving them 10c a piece for dumpster diving isn't the solution.

Why does the Gov'ment have to finance programs for everything? Provide incentives, okay; but don't expect everybody to be spoon-fed. You want a job? Get off yer azz and do what you can.

That aside, I'm still unconvinced that anybody should have a need to dive into dumpsters or raid household bins. My concept is that cans and bottles are collected back at point of sale, so consumers have to take theirs back for instant refund. That would even eliminate the need for extra recycling bins and save councils money for collecting, sorting, recycling items that should be none of their responsibility.

btw, sptrawler, I never intended my suggestion to be taken as a put-down. I really believe it can be as simple as I described, and it definitely ain't rocket science.

 

[luutzu]

Why does the Gov'ment have to finance programs for everything? Provide incentives, okay; but don't expect everybody to be spoon-fed. You want a job? Get off yer azz and do what you can.

That aside, I'm still unconvinced that anybody should have a need to dive into dumpsters or raid household bins. My concept is that cans and bottles are collected back at point of sale, so consumers have to take theirs back for instant refund. That would even eliminate the need for extra recycling bins and save councils money for collecting, sorting, recycling items that should be none of their responsibility.

btw, sptrawler, I never intended my suggestion to be taken as a put-down. I really believe it can be as simple as I described, and it definitely ain't rocket science.

If gov't isn't there to finance social programs, what are they there for?

If tax dollars aren't suppose to fund welfare or help the needy, why are we paying taxes?

Tax dollars aren't supposed to only to bail out big corporations or provide guarantees to big banks and their creditors.

I'm told we pay out taxes so that we could have that "civil" society. A society is not civil if it blames the poor and kick the weak but kiss the rings of the rich.

Sometimes the poor and the homeless aren't that way because they're lazy and no good druggies. Sure, they might have made big mistakes in their lives; and sure, society is not there to provide all their needs... but there is that balance.

----
Not many people would buy a drink and finish it off on the spot to return for 10c. People do buy in bulk, and do buy canned and bottled drinks to take away.

But anyway, if we really want the kids or the homeless to benefit somewhat; and to keep the street clean... there are other cheaper ways to do it.

Teach the kids about recyling; fund programmes so the homeless have shelter and be employed in more productive work and efficient means than them going from bin to bin. etc.

Of course the politicians know these... they just don't care for it. The idea is not to be Green or the help the homeless, it's the get from consumers an extra tax and give it to the corporate recylers.