litter tax !

Wook

Ireland cleans up with litter tax


Ireland is taking new steps to combat the problem of litter.
The litter problem on Ireland's streets has prompted the government to bring in a series of new taxes aimed at funding a national clean-up.
The government in the Irish Republic is to introduce a tax on chewing gum, polystyrene food wrappers and cash machine receipts, it announced on Tuesday.

The move follows on from the success of the country's plastic bag tax. Introduced in March of last year, it has cut the number of bags used by an estimated 90% - vastly reducing the numbers of them littering Irish streets and the countryside.

The chewing gum tax is expected to add five to 10 euro cents to the price of a packet and will help fund special "gum-buster" cleaning machines.

I wouldn't want to describe Ireland as a filthy country by any means because we have changed our ways a lot in recent years, but we still have a long way to go.

Martin Cullen
Irish environment minister

The levy on polystyrene food wrapping will be introduced in a bid to make fast food chains switch to recyclable packaging.

Details of the tax on cash machine receipts have not been announced.

Speaking on Irish radio, Environment Minister Martin Cullen said evidence of the litter problem was obvious to see.

"I wouldn't want to describe Ireland as a filthy country by any means because we have changed our ways a lot in recent years, but we still have a long way to go."

He said people could see the problem with chewing gum by looking at "our streets, our footpaths, our pavements right across the country".

"It is costing local authorities millions every year to clean this up and I feel we have to have a polluter paid principle on this where the people who use chewing gum should pay a small tax."

Funds from the tax would be distributed to local authorities for use in the clean-up operation.

Polystyrene

Mr Cullen said he hoped fast food outlets would work with the Irish Government and stop using non-biodegradable polystyrene packaging and switch to paper wrapping.

A spokesman for the minister also confirmed that a tax would be introduced on cash machine receipts, but did not give any details.

The Republic's tax on disposable plastic bags has been hailed as a significant success.

Instead of getting the bags for free, shoppers now have to pay 15 cents (nine pence) for each one.

In the three months after it was introduced, shops handed out just over 23 million plastic bags - about 277 million fewer than normal.

Shoppers have been encouraged to use tougher, reusable bags instead. Many retailers also give out paper bags free of charge.

(source: bbc.co.uk)


Note: I would have thought this would have been raised and cheered by the people visiting this board
I for one , like the idea, i just don't know about the ATM receipts.
Never ask for one and never print one out but will i still get taxed everytime i use the automat ?

Imposter

I read this earlier on the indo website and i'd agree with the Polystyrene packaging bit.

I would hope though that the ATM receipt tax would only be charged to people who ask for a receipt (and get one).

Wrt the chewing gum tax I think that is ridiculous. Why should people who dispose of chewing gum properly have to pay this tax? If I put my chewing gum into a bin and not on the street then I am not causing any problems. In a way the same is true of the packaging and receipts but they are, to a large extent, unneccesary use of paper/packaging.

If this tax is applied to chewing gum surely it should be also applied to cigarettes where most people (as opposed to just a few with chewing gum) just throw them on the street. Also with 'anything' that is found abandoned on the street the same logic could be applied.

I was under the impression that that was what the litter wardons were introduced for but obviously they're costing money and are not very effective. Surely if I have to pay a tax when buying chewing gums, that will be used to clean them from the streets then it can be argued that I am entitled to throw them on the street seeing I have paid for it's removal!

Mr E

I presume you don't get charged for a receipt unless you request one (99% of ATMs don't give out receipts without asking first!). Great idea, though.... such a huge amount of wasted paper.

- Dave.

Son of Blam

From The Irish Times (17/8/2003):

"However, the county councils of Cavan, Offaly, Sligo and Westmeath, as well as Limerick and Waterford Corporations and Longford Town Council, did turn up the startling information that 67 per cent of all their litter is cigarette-related - 52 per cent of that being butt ends which are slower to biodegrade than you think - and nearly 8 per cent is chewing gum."

I can only assume that the same percentage of litter in Dublin is cigarette-related. If anything should be taxed to reduce litter it should be cigarettes.

b3t4

I am as against litter as the next person but I think more taxes aren't going to make a huge difference. It just means the price of things like chewing gum and the likes go up again. Would 10cent really stop a person from buying chewing gum when it has proberally gone up by that amount already and proberally a few times too?? Why don't they just ban chewing gum from being sold in shops and only allow pharmasists to sell it as a dental aid (as has been done in another country, name escapes me). It's not like chewing gum is a vital source of nourishment.

I don't smoke but aren't the government already getting tax from cigarettes, why don't they just use that money besides asking for more.

As for the Polystyrene tax I think this is a good idea but will proberally be minimal to the main users of it. Take for example my local chipper they have already been using paper to wrap their chips in. They didn't need a tax on Polystyrene to not use it.

Litter is part and partly due to people's attitude and I don't think extra tax is going to change that. Also I think that there should be way more bins everywhere and that they should be cleaned out regularly so they don't over flow. If people had a bin right beside them I would hope that they would think twice about littering. I am very litter concious and look for a bin whenever it's needed. Most of the time I can't see one or it's across the street or requires just too much effort to locate one. I'm the kind of person who would put it in my pocket to take home and dispose of it there but other people aren't.

My two cense,
A.

Hyzepher

The tax is not to try and stop people buying/using chewing gum but to help pay for cleaning it up.

I don't think the Government want to stop people using the product.

Hyzepher

Son of Blam

An extra levy cut Ireland's consumption of plastic bags by 90%. Granted this isn't exactly the same thing but if it works for plastic bags I'm sure there's some way a tax/levy will cut down on other forms of waste.

(90% figure from The Irish Times again: "According to retailers, consumption of plastic bags fell by at least 90 per cent. Before the levy had been introduced, 1.2 billion such bags, or roughly 325 per person, had been circulated each year.")

Imposter

Originally posted by Son of Blam
An extra levy cut Ireland's consumption of plastic bags by 90%. Granted this isn't exactly the same thing but if it works for plastic bags I'm sure there's some way a tax/levy will cut down on other forms of waste.

As with all litter it's irresponsible people that's the problem in conjunction with council/government policies (not enough bins and useless implementation of litter wardens) and not the products.

In saying this as I said before an incentive to stop people wanting receipts and stop companies using plastic packaging would be a good thing too but the chewing gum bit is stupid.

Why does it come down to punishing everyone who uses the product rather than punishing the offenders? Seems to me it's because the government/council can't do their job properly/satisfactorily. Plus a little more indirect tax never hurt the coffers.

bonkey

Originally posted by Imposter
If this tax is applied to chewing gum surely it should be also applied to cigarettes where most people (as opposed to just a few with chewing gum) just throw them on the street.

You obviously didn't read the bit where it mentioned that the tax on gum would go towards paying for the cost of specialist "gum buster" machines.

A tiny bit of though would explain why gum is a bigger problem despite being a smaller percentage.

You drop a box of butts on a street, and let people walk over them all day, and then run along in the evening with a regular cleaning machine. They will be gone.

You do the same with a box of chewed gum. Come the end of the day, they will be firmly caked into the road, the path, the bin/wall that someone stuck them onto, etc. etc. etc. They don't get removed readily by the regular cleaning machine. Some will remain.

Gum is a bigger problem than virutally any other rubbish when it comes to long-term litter problems, for exactly this reason. I dont think its unreasonable to single it out as a significant culprit.

jc

mike65

Apart from civil liberties (ha!) can anyone put forward a reason not to ban the sale of chewing gum?

Its truly pointless - its got no energy content to speak of, no nutritional vaule, no carbohydrate, its a food void.

Mike.

pissedasanewt

But chewing gum makes you look cool... and if you believe the adverts it makes your teeth white and women flock to you....

On another note... granted, you should be charged extra if you request a receipt from an ATM, but banks should be made responsible for keeping the area around the ATM rubbish free. Those little letter boxes by the ATM's are always full and its almost impossible to get your receipt into them... how many people walk away from the ATM and then drop the receipt, they are all dropped at the ATM.

A few litter wardens wouldn't go amiss... i don't think I have EVER EVER seen a litter warden on the street!!..

finally, if you are one of those people who get caught littering, you should be made spend an afternoon cleaning the street you litter while wearing a big fluorescent bib saying litterer.. name and shame or hitting people in the pockets is the only way we will learn.

Capt'n Midnight

More thin edge of the wedge stuff.... (stealth tax)
betcha there will be MORE people littering
" bledin jazus , i'm not pickin da up , dat's paid for wit dat feckin tax "

chewing gum is a food substitute - and so is extrememly non-fattening ( but watch out for gas ) - and considering the food taxes on Fat ,,,,,,

seamus

I would never have thought that ATM receipts were such a big problem. I only ask for one when getting money from my own banks ATM (other ATM don't give you a balance) and will always rip it up and throw it in a bin, for security loike.

Other than that, the ideas are sound. Perhaps fast food restaurants should be encouraged to only supply paper bags to takeaway customers (i.e paper around every foodstuff), and plastic, reusable plates to sit-in customers, with no packaging at all. Reusable may warrant health concerns, but no worse than the actual food being sold

Gordon

I didn't think bank machine receipts were that bad either, in fact I still don't. I pay for taking money out of my bank machine as it is - that may go to general bank machine things like - paying for the machine and the ease of use it gives me and the upkeep of it but wouldn't mind at all if I got charged per receipt (as long as it wasn't a euro or some ludicrous amount that I wouldn't be surprised they may charge.)

The main reason that the bag levy worked so well was because people knew that they would get taxed if they got a bag - they would then take a second think about getting a bag. If this is used on chewing gum - I can only hope that the money gets put to good use, I can only hope that the money from polystyrene (sp?) sales creates more bins on the streets as does chewing gum tax - to the chuggie cleaners.

Mind you - if polystyrene was taxed wouldn't the burger bars find something else (ie paper) to wrap their goods in?

Victor

I think the gum tax should be 50c on a standard packet and pro-rataed depending on size.

The ATM thing is a localised thing - the bins just fill up over the weekends.

seamus

Originally posted by Gordon
Mind you - if polystyrene was taxed wouldn't the burger bars find something else (ie paper) to wrap their goods in?

I thought that was the point Gordo

The plastic bag levy wasn't really to help with the cleanup, rather to make people consider before they took a bag

Gordon

Heh, d'oh. I am easily confused.

The point of the polystyrene tax = eco friendly prompting
The point of the cash machine tax = litter halting.

Hmm... seems a little hypocritical to me the reasons why, then. The McDonalds Big Mac type burgers have containers that are eco friendly already don't they? Why are non-eco friendly containers being sold? I thought they were outlawed.

mike65

What is really needed to put the tax burden on the producer of packaging, for example why are batteries sold with
a card and plastic wrapper? Whats wrong with simply picking up
or asking the shop assistant to pick up the number of batteries required out of a cardboard box? How come blank CDs/tapes have a selaphane wrapper?, they already come in a sealed outer plastic film or in a card box....

Mike.

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
You obviously didn't read the bit where it mentioned that the tax on gum would go towards paying for the cost of specialist "gum buster" machines.

A tiny bit of though would explain why gum is a bigger problem despite being a smaller percentage.

I did read that and yes I understand that it is a bigger problem than cigarette butts in the streets. However this still doesn't change the fact that the person who acts responsibly in disposing of their chewing gum is still going to have to pay this tax for those that don't.

Dublin Corporation introduced litter wardens a few years ago. How many people have ever come into contact with them? I only knew they existed as a security guard in our college building told me they had to put cigarette bins outside the building as the wardens went for lunch just beside this building.

Surely litter wardens or some similar solution would make far more sense rather than targeting everyone and not just the offenders.

It also causes a situation where it creates no incentive to stop littering. If anything it justifies littering. And that in my opinion is wrong.

AdMMM

I think it's a good idea, if it can help our streets look that little bit nicer...

bonkey

Originally posted by Imposter
However this still doesn't change the fact that the person who acts responsibly in disposing of their chewing gum is still going to have to pay this tax for those that don't.

Yes, and smokers who don't get smoking-related illnesses are still paying usurious taxes for no apparent reason. people who don't own cars are still paying indirectly for road maintenance etc. People who don't get sick are still paying for medical attention.

Would you be happier if the government put a blanket tax on everyone to pay for this, so that every non-gum-litterer was being charged for the damage done by a minority?

Surely litter wardens or some similar solution would make far more sense rather than targeting everyone and not just the offenders.

Yup, and in a city the size of Dublin, you'd only need at least as many as you have policemen, and probably an order of magnitude more in order for them to actually make a noticeable impact - and like gardai, you'd need a 24/7 presence - people don't just litter in the day.

And who's gonna pay for them? Surely you're not advocating that everyone pays for it, because that would be charging the non-litterers for the costs incurred on the state by the litterers - which is akin to what you're already saying is wrong with the current proposal. Or do you think that they'd actually generate enough money in paid fines to pay for their own upkeep?

It also causes a situation where it creates no incentive to stop littering. If anything it justifies littering. And that in my opinion is wrong.

How does telling people "you are paying more for this because people keep using it as litter" an incentive? Surely it indicates the mindset that "and if this doesnt solve the problem, we'll increase the price further, and further until you've copped on".

The beauty of the approach is that it doesn't require successful policing. You want gum, you're already paying the litter charge. You keep littering, that charge will increase over time. You want the charge to stop increasing, or to go away, you stop littering, and maybe even stop others from littering.

At the very least, its a cheap way of raising public awareness - which is the only real solution anyway.

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, and smokers who don't get smoking-related illnesses are still paying usurious taxes for no apparent reason. people who don't own cars are still paying indirectly for road maintenance etc. People who don't get sick are still paying for medical attention.

I don't see where this is relevant.
Smokers have a chance of getting a smoking related illness.
People who use cars also pay for public transport, which most of those that don't have cars use. Most people will get sick at some stage. People who chew gum can be 100% sure they will dispose of it properly.

Would you be happier if the government put a blanket tax on everyone to pay for this, so that every non-gum-litterer was being charged for the damage done by a minority?

Of course not, but imo it's the same thing. You're still punishing innocent people as well as the guilty ones.

Yup, and in a city the size of Dublin, you'd only need at least as many as you have policemen, and probably an order of magnitude more in order for them to actually make a noticeable impact - and like gardai, you'd need a 24/7 presence - people don't just litter in the day.

Privatise it, link it into other public servants jobs. It wouldn't take long using proper enforcment to get the message across.

And who's gonna pay for them? Surely you're not advocating that everyone pays for it, because that would be charging the non-litterers for the costs incurred on the state by the litterers - which is akin to what you're already saying is wrong with the current proposal. Or do you think that they'd actually generate enough money in paid fines to pay for their own upkeep?

Use spot checks. This part today, this part tomorrow. A particularly dirty place more often.

How does telling people "you are paying more for this because people keep using it as litter" an incentive? Surely it indicates the mindset that "and if this doesnt solve the problem, we'll increase the price further, and further until you've copped on".

People are funny like that. Did similar tactics by rising the taxes and prices work in encouraging smokers to quit, does it encourage people to use public transport. No is the answer and why because people will do what they want and generally in a selfish way. The person who throws the gum on the street is more inclined to think that they've already paid for its removal so there's no harm in just throwing it on the street.

The beauty of the approach is that it doesn't require successful policing. You want gum, you're already paying the litter charge. You keep littering, that charge will increase over time. You want the charge to stop increasing, or to go away, you stop littering, and maybe even stop others from littering.

See above about people's attitudes.

At the very least, its a cheap way of raising public awareness - which is the only real solution anyway.

True, raising public awareness is the way to tackle it. But I feel it's a knee-jerk reaction to the success of the plastic bag tax which did have a positive reaction. This I think will definitely make matters no better and will perhaps make them worse.

Victor

Originally posted by Imposter
Dublin Corporation introduced litter wardens a few years ago. How many people have ever come into contact with them?

They have so far tended to target rubbish collections and derilict sites sollecting rubbish.

Imposter

Originally posted by Victor
They have so far tended to target rubbish collections and derilict sites sollecting rubbish.

There was a pair of them (maybe still are, I dunno) that were 'on the beat' in the city centre, as I know places who had to put bins for cigarettes outside some buildings as the wardens went for lunch near there. I have never heard of anyone being fined by them though!

Victor

Originally posted by Imposter
I have never heard of anyone being fined by them though!

Tiffany Blinds on the North Strand were whinging in the Northside People that "we didn't know".

colinsky

Originally posted by mike65
What is really needed to put the tax burden on the producer of packaging, for example why are batteries sold with
a card and plastic wrapper?

anti-theft. The card is bigger than the average pants pocket. Loose batteries would just be slipped into peoples pockets and the like.

Victor

Imagine, soon the cigarette vending machines in pubs will be full of these, not cigarettes.

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/1201057?view=Eircomnet

Pocket ashtrays bid to end cigarette butts blitz
From:The Irish Independent
Saturday, 16th August, 2003
Nicola Anderson

SMOKERS often face the indignity of being told they smell like an ashtray - which may not be far from the truth when a new initiative by Dublin City Council rolls out.

For workers employed by the capital's local authority are set to be issued with free, portable, flameproof ashtrays to carry in their pockets in a bid to encourage the stamping out of the practice of dropping cigarette butts on the ground.

The simple, hard plastic devices have been a success in Britain and Australia and will go on sale in shops and petrol stations throughout Dublin from next month.

It's all part of a larger campaign to clean up the capital's streets, currently soiled by a staggering 4m cigarette butts every day - that's four cigarettes for every man, woman and child there . . . or 14 cigarettes dropped on the ground by each of 280,000 smokers in the greater Dublin area.

As an added incentive for smokers to clean up their act, the city council will impose a hefty fine of €125 on anyone seen dropping a cigarette butt on the ground.

Lord Mayor Royston Brady explained yesterday that such butts already account for 32pc of litter on the streets. And it takes 12 years for a butt to biodegrade.

And with the introduction of tough if controversial anti-smoking laws on January 1, with bars and restaurants becoming non-smoking zones, it is feared the littering of city streets with butts will increase hugely.

"We need action now to prevent our pavements being carpeted with butts as more and more smokers are forced outdoors," said Mr Brady. "The campaign should ensure all smokers dispose of butts properly, leading to much cleaner streets."

A Fianna Fail spokesperson said the ashtrays, slightly smaller than a cigarette box and with similar flip-top lids, are dishwasher proof and intended to be used over and over again. The price is unknown but they may carry advertising eventually.

pissedasanewt

I'll believe it when I see it...

People litter in Dublin because there is no fear of being caught, I've never seen anybody pulled up /fined for littering.

So what makes the county council think that people will buy a portable ash tray to carry around with them when its just as easy to drop it on the ground?

They need to get on the streets and start fining people / busineses / banks for littering or allowing litter to pile up outside their premisis.