They certainly don't give the full picture but nevertheless have a limited value.
They prove that what I posted is correct.
"many are collecting refunds...."
Deleted
I don't buy any of those mixtures of sugar and water. Some of which have increased this year apparently. Only Soda Waters, some of which have reduced.
I wouldn't trust your logic as far as I could throw it based on recent events.
Does it really matter where the money goes if the consumer ends up worse off? I know you don't hold the drinks companies, the retailers or indeed return to the same reporting standards as you seem to hold the bin companies to. Why is this?
You can't state anything about the soft drinks industry as a whole as there's no data available that covers all soft drinks over a period of a number of years. There's countless examples here of base price inflation on this thread.
Would any company admit to something that makes them look bad? Would you even admit to some that that makes you look bad......
No company is going to say they took advantage of consumer confusion to add another ten percent on top......
Well yiippee do! How many used to go in household recycling bins every day before this? Absolutely pointless figures.
We don't know how many are paying deposits. So the figures of those recovering them are meaningless.....
Yeah a Sunday. Come on! 🤣
Lord Ossian himself said 1.9 billion sold per year so 5.2 million a day.
An update on the figures. If I was using the simplistic logic applied by the recent RTE report, I would say that they have achieved a 86.4 % return. 4.32 million out of a guesswork 5 million sales.
https://re-turn.ie/irelands-record-returns-over-half-a-billion-containers-returned-since-the-launch-of-the-deposit-return-scheme/
"Sunday, September 8 was the busiest day for returns with 4.32 million containers brought back in one day."
You should release a range of not for profit soda waters and pay yourself a big salary. At least that would be more imaginative trolling than your posts here.
Also you weren't told soda water prices were meaningless because it was only 1 product. Soda water was already overpriced so you cherry picked it as it was coming down anyway when the DRS was launching. The only such outlier you could find it seems due to the fact we've never heard the fecking end of it since.
The fundamental difference between the two is that the bin companies are seeking to take extra money from your bank account that you will never see again.
Meanwhile Re-turn offer to give you back your deposit. All their public statements urge consumers to get their money back.
It is true that there are many problems with DRS, most of which we have discussed here, but many are collecting refunds and the figures show that.
Re-Turn is a not for profit entity, funded by the Polluters. They never cost me a cent, so I am not much interested in their internal affairs. I am paying a big whack to Oxigen, so I don't want them conning me into paying even more using Re-Turn as an excuse. Let them justify it to the politicians.
"Re-turn (DRSI CLG) is a not for profit company limited by guarantee, and was formed by producers and retailers in order to fulfil their obligations under the Separate Collection (Deposit Return Scheme) Regulations 2021."
What I need to know is whether all that supplementary income is going to the bosses and the shareholders. Or is some of it coming back to their customers, in the shape of subsidy to the recurring charge. Simple enough for them to explain when they get the chance.
You realise that is a conspiracy theory about drinks prices? Why would they admit to something if it is not true? And how about someone producting some evidence, never mind proof. As odyssey06 asked yesterday: "Did anything else happen that might explain the increase?".
The very logical viewpoint which I saw is that the supermarkets at the end of the supply chain knew they could not make big increases. Because the public were already facing a 15 / 25 cent deposit at the point of sale. Which they could get back when they consumed the product.
I was warned about using the price reduction to some One Litre Soda Waters on the thread, because individual products prove nothing. So let that apply to individual increases. The plain fact is that the Soft Drinks category as a whole increased by 2.8% in the year to August. The exact same as the calendar year 2021. And way below the 10% / 11% for the years 2022 and 2023. Obviously the increase in 2023 was concentrated more in the first half.
The logic would be the companies were supplementing their recurring charges income with income from 'recycling or selling' specific types of material that they had collected from roadside collections. It's very common knowledge that ALU was a particularly lucrative market. One would expect that had the income from that market dropped of a cliff, as it has, that that needs to be made up somewhere. I don't think thats and illogical standpoint and if anything it's perfectly normal in business practice, particularly when you only competition is a state sponsored monopoly going forward.
The profits I am talking about are more to do with retailers and producers using the DRS as an opportunity to increase the base price of their products. Which of course they will never admit and which evidently can't be reacted using the CPI for various reasons. Some good posts on this thread have gone over on detail what has been going on.
I love that you expect the bin companies to provide all evidence of everything but ReScam don't have to prove anything...
The logic would have to be that the companies were making a profit on cans. Over and above the profit they are making from completely unexplained (to me) recurring charges. I am giving them stuff which they want, they don't take stuff they don't want. They have increased the recurring charge (in my case) on a number of occasions before DRS.
And that they were using some of the profit from cans to make the recurring charges lower than they would have been otherwise. It would be logical to ask customers to cover that reduction now, if the profit is lower. But if they were taking all the profit to pass on to shareholders and top executives, those people should take the hit. That is the sort of information which will make things clear, when they present their evidence. Anyway it all seems very rushed, after only a few months to judge market conditions.
You can't or won't see the wood from the trees. Hard to have a civil conversation if posters can't or won't display the ability to apply basic logic to situations.
It makes complete sense that corporate entities will make the best of any situation to increase their profits. Something you'll never find them admitting to however.
Why would Oxigen tell you they 'need' cans from you? Think about that piece of nonsense for a moment.
Are you going to acknowledge that Return have listed the recyclables as a specific source of their revenue? So you must accept they are valuables to the tune of several millions. Or just keep coming up with nonsense and deflections like that?
The CPI figures don't show that to be false because the items in the scope of the CPI figures are limited and may not pickup on certain specific suppliers increasing the price on specific products.
Greater minds than me remain to be convinced of that logic. We will see how it pans out, when the companies present their evidence. See post #2251. Anyway so far, Oxigen have not increased mine. I think I am giving them a big enough whack of money already, and they never told me before that they need cans from me.
Another great logic here is that the supply chain used the introduction of DRS to increase prices. It just makes common sense, doesn't it? It doesn't unless someone comes up with the proof. The CPI figures show that it is false.
And Doolan is entirely correct.
However, that doesn't excuse what happened when the bin companies up'd their prices becuase Re-turn took a slice of their action.
The consumer is at the mercy of both bastards. And both bastards need to go.
Companies like Greyhound, who don't even pay their taxes here, are cunts no doubt. But Re-turn is no better and the scheme that's been set up has been a fat disaster since it's started. It's simply not fit for purpose in its current form. There's no getting away from that.
I, literally, know nobody IRL that's happy with it.
From a logical perspective (I know this is difficult) - can you see why a waste collection company would have to put up their prices IF a significant income earner for them in the past (ALU) were removed for the items that they collected? Or would you expect them to pick up the tab themselves?
This is a fairly straightforward logicaly grounded answer…
That sort of answer is more common than people might think.
I asked a person in the Waste Company repeatedly is the price increase due to losing aluminium from recycle bins and eventually he said "I wouldn't argue with that"
How many millions does Return expect in revenue from sale of recyclables?
You were the one who kicked this off with the sob story nonsense.
Which suppliers?
It will prove nothing as you quote it without understanding. It is entirely plausible as basis for discussion to propose that DRS led to price increases from certain suppliers.
Just as you posted nonsense about media sob stories while being utterly incapable of acknowledging that Return are now using the millions from recyclables to fund their operations.
Do you think that fools anyone?
When you do that, your posts have no credibility.
I will quote that the next time someone claims their Coke or Lucozade price went up because of DRS.
SF agit prop drivel. How does he know what it is motivated by? More economic illiteracy.
Did anything else happen that might explain the increase?
And regardless you are committing the same logical fallacy. The explanations of previous price increases doesnt mean the current price increase has same reason.
Given that we know the recyclables are worth several millions and Return list it as a specific funding source.
You keep running away from that point for obvious reasons.
This was well before DRS.
June 16, 2023Greyhound Recycling’s staggering 48% price increases driven by nothing else but greed – Cllr Daithí Doolan
June 16, 2023
Greyhound Recycling’s staggering 48% price increases driven by nothing else but greed – Cllr Daithí Doolan
Dublin Sinn Féin Councillor Daithí Doolan has said that Greyhound Recycling’s decision to increase prices by a staggering 48% in the space of less than 18 months is motivated by nothing else but greed. The Councillor for Ballyfermot-Drimnagh added that it is further proof of the need for domestic waste collection services to be brought back into public ownership.
Cllr Doolan said:
“This staggering increase will come as a shock to Greyhound customers. The monthly charge is to jump by 48% from €16.50 less than 18 months ago to €24.47 next month. “This increase comes just two months after Panda started charging their customers for the brown bin collection. “Today’s announcement by Greyhound is driven by nothing else but greed. None of the waste collection companies are struggling to maintain profits."
That's Killarney.
Change is coming.
https://m.independent.ie/regionals/kerry/south-kerry-news/first-town-in-kerry-to-eliminate-coffee-cups-celebrates-hat-trick-of-awards/a301965306.html
