Brickbat: It's All About the Green

British retailers are warning the government that a proposed "green" tax on packaging could increase consumers' grocery bills by a total of up to £4 billion ($5.003 billion) a year. The tax, which is slated to take effect next April, would tax manufacturers and retailers for the packaging they use. The funds would pay to improve local recycling efforts. The tax is also aimed at encouraging businesses to use less packaging. But business groups say the costs will be passed on to consumers.

Comments

[Adans smith]

Passed on to the consumers huh? Who saw that coming? Also, more inflation, but, it's for the planet. It's all good.

[Jerryskids]

Obviously just need a law to prevent those greedy corporations from passing the costs onto consumers.

[KaylaCopeland]

I get paid more than $90 to $100 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on.the accompanying site…
.
.
Following this information:-:-:-:-:-:-:- https://Www.Coins71.Com

[Melinda Roman]

I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM

[EmerieMica]

Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com

[Adans smith]

Yeah, they're going to get ‘pounded’.

[titodi2639]

Working on the web pays me more than $120 to $130 per hour. I learned about this activity three months ago, and since then I have earned around $15k without having any online working skills. open the webpage below to check it
.
.
.
.

HERE——-⫸≻Reason7.com

[Vernon Depner]

All taxes on businesses are passed on to consumers. Duh.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Well all they have to do to avoid the tax is increase their spillage costs, those costs don't get past onto the consumer, right? Got to be better for the environment anyway to throw away damaged goods, transport more goods and then throw more of those away.

[SQRLSY One]

Which just shows to go ya! Greedy capitalists! WHY are the greedy capitalists SOOOO unwilling to be slaves of Government Almighty, dammit!??!? Pass on increased costs to MEEEE, huh?!?! We'll just have Government Almighty own and run everything! THAT will make it work!

[Ed]

To expand on Vernon's observation: Businesses paying taxes (or regulatory costs, or tariffs when the sole sources are imported) is one of the really big lies that we are all complicit in accepting.

Any tax or regulatory burden that effects an entire industry is always passed on to consumers. Always.

The only cost that a business actually pays (reducing their profits) is for their own inefficiency relative to their competitors.

We all know this must be the case. It’s not advanced economics. But we all play along with the fiction that we can tax businesses and not consumers. It mystifies me why we do. It’s like we’re happy to be stupid — we insist on it, in fact!

[Nazi-Burning Witch]

I've tried to point this out to people before, and they get really mad about it. The part about how businesses never pay taxes, not them being dumb. I can understand why they'd get upset at my pointing out that they're being retards. 😉

"Every time you seek to levy a tax on a business, you're just levying it on their customers."

"NUH UNH!"

It's like talking to a five year old.

I will grant there is another option... if people won't support the price increase, the business might go under. What a win. :-/

[Mickey Rat]

Or they are reducung the employees future compensation. There is an odd magical thinking that you can hurt a company without hurting the customers or employees.

[defaultdotxbe]

The only cost that a business actually pays (reducing their profits) is for their own inefficiency relative to their competitors.

Which, ironically, means businesses are *already* incentivized to use as little packaging as possible, no taxing needed.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes, it is amazing what that one single number, the price, tells everybody. Fuel costs go up? So does the price. Packaging costs go up? So does the price. Business taxes go up? So does the price.

It's so simple, yet everyone seems to maintain the fiction they can tax businesses to solve all problems.

It's akin to claiming tariffs are paid by the exporter. Doesn't really matter if the importer or exporter writes the check; the price goes up and the customer pays it, or not.

[Ed]

Agreed. They don't solve many problems. But one valuable purpose of business taxes is to create a use-tax of sorts, where the externalized costs of an industry are passed along to the consumers of that industry. Arguably more fair than charging everyone, though still somewhat dishonest about just who is footing the bill.

[Ride 'Em]

Well, it is a bit worse than that: it is price plus profit margin. If an industry makes a 5% net profit, when costs go up prices increase by an amount to cover the cost plus maintain 5% profitability. Investors expect the companies to maintain that profitability.

It is why the defense industry doesn’t mind all the regulation and road construction companies don’t mind the union wages forced on them by the feds. Higher costs mean larger per share profits, especially on cost plus jobs. It is why an F22 fighter costs so much.

[emkcams]

"Which, ironically, means businesses are *already* incentivized to use as little packaging as possible, no taxing needed."

A minor correction: businesses are only incentivized to use the *cheapest* packaging possible. That might result in less packaging, but it may not.

A policy that may lead to less packaging would be for waste disposal charges that are based on volume and weight. This would incentivize consumers to buy goods with less packaging, which would incentivize manufacturers to follow suit. A possible sound bite: "Buying something incurs the future cost to dispose of it". And yes, it is clear that someone with the talent should make that into a usable sound bite. 😉

[laxox]

I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......

SITE. ——>>> salerybitecoin.com

[defaultdotxbe]

In the long run it does seem to result in less packaging. A larger form of packing may cost less for the packing itself in some instances, but then it costs more to ship, store, and takes up more shelf space to display in a retail outlet, so in the long run it often ends up costing more.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

You just don't understand, or accept, progressive economics.

To get woke, you have to believe that concepts like taxes, prices, costs, wages, revenues, profits, etc. are all isolated political constructs. None of these are in any way connected to each other. And all of these can and should be set by government fiat in order to achieve ideological goals.

Get it?

[Vernon Depner]

we’re happy to be stupid

That should be the motto on our currency.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Beati Sumus Ut Stultus Es

[rev-arthur-l-kuckland]

I propose the you reap what you sew bill
"environmentalists are not allowed to use heat, ac, natural gas, or private transportation. Nor are they allowed to go to places that use these things"

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Yes, that might help, especially if policy implementation lagged for people who voted against some new law.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Or use things that were made using those things.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

The tax is also aimed at encouraging businesses to use less packaging. But business groups say the costs will be passed on to consumers.

I'm imagining this in Japan.

[Dillinger]

>>The funds would pay to improve local recycling efforts.

England doesn't ship its "recycling" to China for sea-disposal?

[TangoDelta]

Meh, they only want to bring Wuhan style wet markets to London. What could possibly go wrong?

Wet markets are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Wet markets are here again

[TJJ2000]

Any excuse... Any excuse at all to STEAL more of the people's labors.

[Gianna32]

Yes, that might help, especially if policy implementation lagged for people who voted against some new law.https://buyozempiconlinemexico.com/

[Davedave]

There's no suggestion the costs won't be passed onto consumers. It is simply impractical to tax consumers directly in this situation, but the intent is to increase prices to cover the costs of disposal of packaging. I can't see anything unreasonable about taxing people to cover the costs they are otherwise escaping.