Deposit return scheme (recycling) - Part 2

There was an increase in the price of the containers, from zero Cents to 15 Cents or 25 Cents. No price increase was applied to the liquid in the containers in connection to DRS. The exceptional thing about DRS is that it allows the customer to get back the 15 or 25 Cents. Because the vendors want to get the containers returned. Unfortunately they do not operate this system for the liquid. That is yours to keep.

The DRS people have rules making the vendors show the 15 and 25 Cents as separate charges on all shelf displays and on all receipts. So it is clear to shoppers that they are paying for two separate products, the container and the liquid inside. But again they have to provide facilities for customers to claim back their 15 or 25 Cents. Once that is done, the customer is back the price increase in the container expenditure becomes Zero again.

A shorter explanation would be to say it is a refundable Deposit not a Price Increase. But you cannot understand that concept, so I hope the longer version gets through.

It is a price increase, albeit one that can be negated by following the process. One purchased product and container prior to DRS. NOW, one is in essence renting the container and can receive the money charged for the container. If I buy a bottle of water and wish to retain the bottle to refill or use at home or whatever I am paying for that.

Retailers and producers make up the majority of the board of directors! Whatever decisions are made are going to be in their best interests. I would ask why is there not a consumer advocate on the board????

As you mentioned earlier today, you have been going round and round with this nonsense for months. I can play the game if you want.

Refer back to schemes started in Australia in the last few years. They have done various changes post launch. And the schemes in Germany and Norway going for decades would not have offered refunds by electronic fund transfer at the start. Our scheme can make changes in future.

And simple English. Do you understand the concept of a refundable deposit?

I understand it, yes.

I can't explain the price increase any more clearly though, sorry.

Maybe somone else can have a go.

Absurd comparison.

How would you expect schemes from decades ago with tech from that period could have supported electronic payments when first introduced?

Can you explain how that would have worked? Well?

And if you cant explain it will be prood it is utterly disingenous nonsense.

That has nothing to do with aspects noted in the submission in 2020 that he ignored and thus far has failed to even comment on, other than kerbside collectors claiming they are at a loss due to mainly loss of aluminium in recycle bins. That loss was highlighted and a primary school pupil can understand loss of an income stream= higher price or reduction in service.

Let's not give our politicians to much credit for understanding finance now 😁

I can.

Your proposal is short by 60 cent.

Who is going to pay that 60 cent so that you can get it ?

@Boggles what you think now?

Soda water has come down in price slightly so that means nothing else has increased in price to fund up front costs of RVMs. They dont need electricity either. They run on green party promises.

No-one needs to know anything about total unclaimed deposits. None of our business.

CEO Foley says all we need are public bin surrounds so we can give our deposit to someone else if we want to. Lovely.

Apart from that Re-Turn is all good /thread 🤣

Product cost 6 euro. Cans cost 60 cent. Pay 6 euro for product, return the cans and therefore your deposit and you have paid 5.40 for the content, not the product.

Just as you did before the scheme.

Thats my last go, if you dont get it, you dont get it, sorry.

I can't understand with all the research into this scheme, public consultation, trips to other countries to see how they did it, why we have ended up in a starting position where it appears as if nothing has been learned from schemes prior to this one. People are disillusioned with the scheme in it's current guise and most people are only engaging because they have to, but the people who never engaged with recycling in the first place aren't doing it with this scheme either, not surprisingly.

But why wasn't this set up right from the start? Can that be answered?