jerry okamura

In todays Star Bulleting, was an article about the bottle bill. One
sentence drew my attention. That was "If the redemption rate for the=20
entire
fiscal year (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006) exceeds 70 percent, the law
requires the container fee to increase from 1=A2 to 1.5=A2 per =
container. If
that happens, the state will notify distributors on Aug. 1, and make=20
any fee
change starting Sept. 1.". So, if we are doing what the State wants us=20=

to
do, they are going to increase the cost to us?

alvin e. toda

This is incentive to exceed 70 collection. And it has
worked as intended. What's wrong with that. In the
first few months critics from all over the place
claimed that redemption did not work because the rate
wasn't even close to 70%. We should be celebrating that
the redemption rate is so high. The scenery is a lot
cleaner for that. It's so unusual to see an empty can
littering the parks nowadays.

andy

The recycling program was setup to be self-supporting, so it can't be
subsidized with general tax revenue. Therefore, the higher the
redemption rate, the less unredeemed money available to run the
operation.

jerry okamura

How can charging us more be an incentive. It would seem to me an
incentive
is when you charge me less for my good behavior, not punish me for my
good
behavior.

jerry okamura

That is a phony argument. No other state that I know of, did not plan
for
the possibility that the redemption rate would not be higher. The state
already pockets a sizeable portion of what we pay for, this is nickel
and
diming us to death.... Besides, think of what is going to happen if the
redemption rate drops. What is going to happen then. And if the
redemption
rate goes above or below the limit, that means that the charge per
bottle
will also rise and fall accordingly, won't it? That is in itself going
to
cost someone money. Or is it the case that once the rate increases it
stay
that way, regardless of what the redemption rate is?

alvin e. toda

I agree with you that there is already money in the
fund for more redemptions above 70%. IIRC, 70% is
reported to be that limit in states where this
redemption is given. 30% is still held in a fund for
more redemptions. I guess the legislators thought that
a special incentive was necessary for the redemption
rate to exceed 70%. We need to see if this incentive
works.

alvin e. toda

The money (30%) is there for recycling Jerry. Don't
follow your argument on "punishing". But if you don't
see what the incentive for recycling is, then you
really should not get involved in business.

jerry okamura

Punishing us for doing what they want us to do is not an incentive, it
is
the direct oppposite. "Rewarding" us would be the direct opposite,
reducing
the cost to us, if we acted in the way they want us to act.

jerry okamura

Becuase you are punishing us for doing what you want us to do...

jayjayjpg

I assume this is the article.
http://starbulletin.com/2006/05/17/news/story12.html
I can see from the bureaucratic perspective that as redemption rates
go up, the operating fund from unredeemed goes down while operating
costs go up because more cans are processed.

I am now curious how many States have a non-refundable portion in
their bottle bills. Also, what the redemption rates are in these
States. I wonder if there is a practical maximum redemption rate and
how it is affected by say 10 cents per can vs 5 or 6 cents.

I was amused by the line "it would be up to retailers how to levy the
half-cent increase on sales of individual beverage containers."

Hmmmm, I wonder how many will round up vs round down!? And will it go
to the State or will the retailer keep it? <rolls eyes>

Jay