More tax - on throw away items

[accymel]

Tax Tax Tax!


LONDON (Reuters) - Britain needs to tax disposable and hard-to-recycle products to encourage manufacturers to change what they make, according to a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). The report calls for a new tax on items such as throw-away cameras, disposable razors and non-rechargeable batteries following the success of European countries who have imposed similar taxes with striking results


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19112006/32...row-items.html

Who will pay for that - yup the customer in the end

[jambutty]

Yes accymel I heard that on the news yesterday or was it this morning.

If it comes about in the UK, and I’m sure that it will eventually, you can bet your sweet life that it will be the consumer who will pay. Mustn’t interfere with company profits, must we?

I have nothing against a business making a profit, even a hefty profit, but what sticks in my craw is the attitude by many businesses that they have a divine right not only to make a profit but to increase the percentage profit year by year.

[accymel]

LOL JB i agree - its always the bottom rungers aka consumer that pays for it because it will no doubt be added on to the price {to hide the fact**, really pee's me off that this country taxes for virtually owt - it'll be fresh air next!!

Tax on using yer name next i wonder

[Ianto.W.]

Sadly we have been forced into a 'throwaway society', modern marketing methods bringing new models out every year prompts us to discared and buy new. Why can these makers design a product that lasts?

[Billcat]

Well, if the company the manufactures the item has to pay the disposal cost upfront, then it would not be surprising to see the price of purchase go up - assuming that the company continues to manufacture the item. Those consumers who want the item will end up paying either way, or making a decision not to purchase.

If there is a high cost of disposing of the item, there are only two ways to pay for it. Make those who use the item pay, or tax everyone to pay for it. I prefer the first option. If I choose items that are easy to dispose of, I pay less; if not, I pay the cost rather than imposing it on everyone. Right now, I have the worst of both worlds, as I try to make the more responsible choice but end up sharing the costs for those consumers who won't.

If the manufacturers find that consumers won't pay the higher price, or if they are forbidden to pass the cost along via increased prices, then they will probably stop making the items with high disposal costs.

[Mick]

You see it again and again a firm makes 10 million profit one year and 8 million the next and they say they made a loss excuse me you made 8 million PROFIT just not as much but its still a profit NOT a loss

[accymel]

Originally Posted by mick

You see it again and again a firm makes 10 million profit one year and 8 million the next and they say they made a loss excuse me you made 8 million PROFIT just not as much but its still a profit NOT a loss

True point its all about greed & the fact that companies feel the need to better their last years outcomes, not just to survive with reasonable profit potential, that it gets comptetitive within themselves & the greed of shareholders & management - that dont always pass down to the general workers whose wage would only go up with general consensus

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by mick

You see it again and again a firm makes 10 million profit one year and 8 million the next and they say they made a loss excuse me you made 8 million PROFIT just not as much but its still a profit NOT a loss

Yes, but firms do not normally continue to make a product that is unprofitable. Nor are companies (or individuals, for that matter) going to be satisfied with a 20% cut in income.

Assuming that folks agree that those producing or using a product should cover any unusual cost of disposal (as opposed to making everyone pay, including non-users), there are only two choices left. Either the consumer pays the cost, or the company does. If the company is allowed to pass the cost of disposal along, the price goes up and, presumably, demand for the high-disposal-cost product will drop (a classic microeconomic response).

If the company is not allowed to pass the cost along, they may find it advantageous to no longer offer that product or to modify the product so that it would no longer be costly to dispose of. It would also require a considerable amount of regulatory oversight in order to determine which price increases by the company are justified and which are not. Frankly, better to pass the disposal cost along to the customer and let them decide whether to pay it, to seek an alternative product, or to do without.

[Sparkologist]

Agreed, Billcat. A very succint & sensible answer.