Pop can refunds

[DD977GM2]

Why are there refunds in states like Michigan, Rhode Island, New York and
the other states that you see listed on pop cans and glass bottle in those states and not in all states???
Is there a logical reason other then that
most of the states seem like welfare states to me?

[Guylee]

uhhhhhhhh...cuz those states wanna keep their welfare babies busy picking up trash?

[OneGuy67]

Those states charge a fee or tax on the can or bottle at the time of purchase that can be redeemed when returned.

[JoeT]

It was an incentive to recycle initially.

In 1982, Massachusetts passed the bottle bill. The retailer pays the money to the bottler, and the consumer pays the retailer. when they are returned the consumer gets their $.05 and the retailer gets their $.05 plus an additional $.0225 for handling the containers. so there is an incentive for the retailer to take them back (as well as they were mandated by law.

The state has a stake in it too. The way the law was written, not all consumers redeem their containers for the deposit. In Massachusetts, distributors and bottlers are required to turn over unclaimed deposits to the state. These funds used to go to the state’s Clean Environment Fund, which supported local and statewide recycling efforts. They now go into the state's General Fund instead.

So, as I said, initially it was a recycle program...bottle get picked up and returned, so less trash. The containers are then in theory recycled so there is less glass and plastic being made, so we'd use less fossil fuels in the production of the containers.

Fast forward 30 years, and although still good for the environment it's really just another tax. Every time you see a broken bottle, or for every plastic bottle or can that is shot at a gun range, the state is ultimately paid that $.05 from the distributor/bottler and that money is put into the general fund (read: support lazy fat asses that don't work and suck off the tit of the government.)


I would assume that other states follow a similar program....I am only aware of this because I have a friend that is a "big wig" at a family owned beverage company in Mass. and it is a pet peeve of his that he has to pay the state for a product that he doesn't get the benefit of actually recycling (he's against bottle bills for a number of economic reasons, but this one bothers him the most)

[KyleT123]

wow. i just learned more about the economics of pop cans that I ever thought I could or would!

[jerrymrc]

It was an incentive to recycle initially.

In 1982, Massachusetts passed the bottle bill. The retailer pays the money to the bottler, and the consumer pays the retailer. when they are returned the consumer gets their $.05 and the retailer gets their $.05 plus an additional $.0225 for handling the containers. so there is an incentive for the retailer to take them back (as well as they were mandated by law.

The state has a stake in it too. The way the law was written, not all consumers redeem their containers for the deposit. In Massachusetts, distributors and bottlers are required to turn over unclaimed deposits to the state. These funds used to go to the state’s Clean Environment Fund, which supported local and statewide recycling efforts. They now go into the state's General Fund instead.

So, as I said, initially it was a recycle program...bottle get picked up and returned, so less trash. The containers are then in theory recycled so there is less glass and plastic being made, so we'd use less fossil fuels in the production of the containers.

Fast forward 30 years, and although still good for the environment it's really just another tax. Every time you see a broken bottle, or for every plastic bottle or can that is shot at a gun range, the state is ultimately paid that $.05 from the distributor/bottler and that money is put into the general fund (read: support lazy fat asses that don't work and suck off the tit of the government.)


I would assume that other states follow a similar program....I am only aware of this because I have a friend that is a "big wig" at a family owned beverage company in Mass. and it is a pet peeve of his that he has to pay the state for a product that he doesn't get the benefit of actually recycling (he's against bottle bills for a number of economic reasons, but this one bothers him the most)


Oregon was the first. Law passed in 71.

[Ah Pook]

I've spent some time in MI and was always amazed at the lack of bottle/can trash on the ground. Even the U of M slums were clean.

I grew up boating in TX. It was common to see cans floating in the water, dumped next to the parking lot or left at campsites. Even Lady Bird's precious highways were littered with 'em.

I'm no fan of taxes and extra fees but at least this one has a positive outcome. As usual, a good idea gets sidetracked and the intended benefactor is lost.

Think of all the homeless people that could put down the "will work" signs and pick up the money just laying on the ground. [Flower]

Now, if they would just put a return tax on McDonalds bags and cups... :rolleyes:

[OneGuy67]

I had an ex-girlfriend who went to Michigan State and she said that a lot of the students supported their education by going around after all the Greek parties and cleaning up the bottles and cans and returning them for the deposit.

[Guylee]

Welp, I was wrong. Better get the board out for today.

[Irving]

Do they provide free shipping to return bottles?