4 ms·
Agreed, it pushes the purchaser to bring it back and also ensure the materials are triaged properly. If they don't, then someone else can collect the refund. I
by m-p-3 7y ago
Agreed, it pushes the purchaser to bring it back and also ensure the materials are triaged properly. If they don't, then someone else can collect the refund.
If it was me I'd put the deposit to 10¢. More people would actually return them, and those who depends on it to make the ends meet wouldn't need to gather as much to make the same amount.
- bobthepanda 7y agoThat would also probably be fair given that nickel deposits were mostly decided on decades ago. The first $.05 bottle deposit law was created in 1972. That would be equivalent to about $.30 today. That would be a much more compelling amount for a modern day citizen to recycle for.
- onion2k 7y agoIt could be $10 and people renting $13500/month apartments still wouldn't take their cans and bottles back themselves.
- freeone3000 7y agoRight, but someone else would. Is the goal to teach a moral lesson, or to ensure cans get collected?
- m-p-3 7y agoTheir loss? If they don't mind offloading that job to someone else and paying for it, then everyone is happy.
- bloopernova 7y agoMichigan's deposit is 10 cents per bottle/can. 97% of bottles and cans are recycled, even while Michigan's recycling rate of other materials is pretty low. Exactly what you described is what happens: If the purchaser doesn't recycle the cans, someone else will. Charities and other people will ask for cans to recycle, and some people will comb through trashcans to get a couple of bucks of empties.
- Scoundreller 7y ago97% if you look at MI sales and MI returns, but how much of that is non-MI material being returned to MI? It sounds ridiculous, but there were even cases in Europe of « fake » bottles manufactured exclusively for getting a refund by the multi-million.