The new recycling system

What shop is taking them at the tills?

You want my general opinion on taxation for green issues? That's quite a broad topic and my opinion is going to vary depending on the tax, isn't it? I don't see the relevance of the question for this thread.

There were no trials. ReTurn are not running a trial nor have they via any retailer. I've already pointed that out to you. A private company decided to implement its own deposit return scheme which ran on a different model with a completely different underlying financial model. It's not relevant to this thread. I've already stated Lidl are the exception from large retailers in that they did support the scheme. I'm not arguing with you in relation to whether this is a cash cow for large retailers or not. We're not going to agree so I'd prefer to avoid a pointless back and forth. We've already had the discussion and I see no reason to restart it as there is no new evidence or no new compelling argument from either of us.

The shop is legally required to charge the deposit. This shop is legally required to take back cans/bottles (I assume based on its size). Whether the shop owner chooses to break the law or not is not something I have any knowledge about.

Shops with a takeback exemption (meaning, they do not have to take returns of cans/bottles) charge the deposit. Nearly every eligible can/plastic bottle will be charge the deposit irrespective where you get it from (theres a tiny handful of exceptions before someone jumps on me).

Yes, and also even your opinion on fines in general if possible. For this discussion green tax and taxes on anything environment based. There are some ways in which this relates to the current RVM scheme.

The private companys that decided to implement their own deposit return schemes, were the legally mandated to do so? and if not, any idea what the motive was? Generally asking here

ok fair enough, but the deposit return schemes these private companys decided to implement. do you think they did it for the benefit of the earth?

in your opinion are their motives non-financial?

like i previously said, it seems quite a coincidence 4 of them magically all of sudden would decide to invest so much millions all at the same time for no good reason and just randomly out of the kindness of their heart.

The last part is against the consumer sales act. You can’t raise a price, just to put it on “sale”. It has to be that price for a certain amount of time.

“Under consumer law, you must display the ‘prior price’ when you mark a product as on sale or promotion. You must also base any discounts, such as an amount or a percentage off, on this prior price. The prior price should be no higher than the lowest price that an item has been on sale for in the 30 days before a promotion starts.

For example, if a laptop is marked as ‘was €700 now €500’ then the business must not have had that laptop on sale for less than €700 in the 30 days before the promotion began.”

i was'nt asking about their businuess model or how/if they made money from the schemes.

i was asking if you think they did it for mother nature. earlier you insisted i was going on about them making money, so i gave example pointing out that they obviously didn'nt do it for nothing. you then responded saying they were mandated/legally required to do it, so then i pointed out that the "trials" aka what you insist isnt trials/private thing, were NOT legally required to do their own little deposit schemes. Proving you wrong.

Also when i say "it seems quite a coincidence 4 of them magically all of sudden would decide to invest so much millions all at the same time for no good reason and just randomly out of the kindness of their heart." i was reffering to this https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121687846/#Comment_121687846

Where are these agents who enforce this law then? because they're getting away with doing this constantly. So many times i see something being raised just before a day it goes on sale, so that they can say "save x amount" instead of the lower x amount they're really saving. Its very dishonest and should be enforced more.

The laptop example you gave, i'll give you an example of what i see being done. lets say this fictional laptop you mentioned is normally €700 yes, ok now imagine there is going to be a sale planned 2 days from today, the owner of the shop decides to raise the price to €1000 euro tomorrow! now the day after tomorrow when the sale is going on, the price of the laptop magically appears in big writing as WOW! SAVE 50% ON THIS AMAZING LAPTOP!! WAS €1000 BUT TODAY IS NOW ONLY €500! save a WHOPPING 50% off!! GREAT VALUE!!

Thats not really 50% off at all, they just upped the price so they could lie about it. A Person is only saving 200 euro in this scenerio. 700-200 isnt 50% off.

There's also a party chips brand that this is being very frequently done with in a different way. A Product (i wont name for legal reasons) is everywhere in the store and in other stores, ALWAYS 2 EURO!, but then a shop decides to up the price to 3.50, and then write "buy 2 for 4 euro, save 3 euro! amazing value!".

Every shop that has not applied for a takeback exemption. You're fully aware of what I meant.

Its well understood on this thread your local shop is exempt.

My local shop is not exempt, it’s just miles away from me.

this is exactly my point, the RVM's rolled out before this was'nt a legal requirement and was obviously done by choice of those companies. You complained about me saying this and that about them doing it for non-green based reasons, so i then went ahead and proved it.

My argument is'nt just a "we're being exploited" sort of thing, its also pointing out ways re-turn can reach their goal faster if they actually wanted to, and ways that step towards solving the problems people have with the scheme. And then ultimately pointing out that they don't actually care about enirovement whatsoever and are only doing the scheme for political or money reasons. NON- enviromental reasons baseically. conflicting interests and impure motives.

it's big businuess and green tax scandal all over again, just nothing more than virtue signalling and a chance at making money from it. And EU politics. i pointed out many times in this thread and in others, how big businuess never cares about mother nature and only doing things out of PR related reasons or with financial intensive. The have no regard whatsoever. And green tax is a scam to allow businuess to continue politing the world as long as they give government a slice of the action. Actions speak louder than words and money talks. A businuess planting a tree isnt gonna cut it. its the same all over again getting the consumers to be left doing all the footwork and being careful with recycling and all that enviorment goals and stuff being pushed on consumer, same with everything enviroment based. fines in generals are rich mans way of being able to get away with things.

think of taxes and fines as "ahh thats okay, thats fine you're allowed to do that aslong you pay me/us you can keep doing what you're doing. and hey if you can afford to do it, we are happy to keep charging you for doing it".

and in regards to the link, see what he was replying/responding to. it was your post and your words

You've proved sweet f all.

You've proved a handful of RVMs were rolled out in the country. There's no evidence they achieved anything. There's no evidence for the rationale for them. It's speculation. You're seeing what you want and nothing else.

And an equally plausible answer is that there was no benefit to the retailer otherwise they would have been rolled out earlier and been widespread.

Lidl on their own scheme and under ReTurn operate on different financial models. They're not comparable.

What exactly does the fact there's been a handful of RVMs prove? Nothing imo. If Lidl could make massive money on them, they would have rolled them out nationwide earlier.

That's not what the OP is arguing.

No, i've proved you wrong on most of the things you were talking about. you just complain that im talking to much and give up and leave the convo then come back in next day starting fresh and forgetting all previous convo almost. i ask you questions who's answer shows the previous points i was making, or answers direct issues you've raised in convo, and countered everything possible. You're being biased in favor of the scheme instead of having an honest discussion about it, thats where the problem lays.

explain to me how "business obviously arr'nt doing it for mother nature or out of the kindness of their heart" is speculation? its more of an obvious fact than it is speculation. Business is not a charity. Money is money.

even with putting barcodes on the bottom of cans you seemed to had forgotten the whole reason it was even brought up here in the first place.

you give replies but rarely any of them ever answer my questions, some i've even had to ask twice or more.

even had to explain green tax to you, only for you to then disregard it entirely and not give your opinion, after having it explained under the false pretense of getting an answer