What do you do with the vouchers from the machines?
Incorrect, it's still a deposit, just like a gas container is a deposit.
It does not factor into price increases nor inflation.
A deposit should be built into the product price, not added on top of it.If the can of coke is 1 euro and people arent returning the containers at a DRS value of 15c, increase the DRS to 50 cent but retain the 1 euro product price.
A deposit should be built into the product price, not added on top of it.
If the can of coke is 1 euro and people arent returning the containers at a DRS value of 15c, increase the DRS to 50 cent but retain the 1 euro product price.
Deposit's are not built into the product price, that's why they are called deposits. That sentence is completely nonsensical as it would represent a reduction in the price of a product by 41% (85c to 50c), the supplier sees none of the deposit.
So the cans cost nothing to produce before DRS?
The scheme can only operate if there is a percentage of non return.
Consumers pays that percentage, it is a de facto price increase.
Whataboutery. Did a gas can cost nothing to produce before there was a deposit on it?
It's still a deposit whether customers take their deposit back or not.
If return was at 100%, the scheme would end up funded by the producers of the containers, but that's unlikely to happen, the %'s would be based off average return rates of other countries that run a deposit scheme. Calling it a price increase is not economically sound. Honestly, this is economics 101 regardless of how riled up people get about it. Misclassifying it as a price increase allows that users argument to be hilariously dismissed as they don't know what they are even arguing about, even if they have good arguments.
It seizes to be a deposit when a customer can't get it back or it is not possible or convenient to get back.
It becomes a de facto price increase. A percentage of non return is built into the scheme, it is how it finances itself.
That's before you even consider the auxiliary time and costs associated with trying to get back your deposit
If return was at 100%, the scheme would end up funded by the producers of the containers
Who told you that?
Honestly, this is economics 101
Economics 102. Taking 10s of millions in deposits and increased collection fees mean consumers have less money to buy other goods and services which according to Economics 103 is bad for the economy.
Putting "de facto" before something doesn't make it true.
I but 8 cans with my weekly shopping, pay the €1.20 deposit, return them the next week before doing my shopping and get my €1.20 back. No price increase whatsoever.
Super.
But you do realise you are not the only person using the scheme, right?
I do, still not a price increase, it's a deposit.
It's a deposit for you. Although you should put some value on your time. But that is up to you.
But if you could point out where in my post you replied to I was talking about you?
You're saying it's a price increase, it is not, it's a deposit, it's that simple.
How does the scheme fund itself?
That's not what I'm discussing. It's not a price increase, it's a deposit. I'll leave it there with you.
You seem unwilling to discuss anything that isn't you.
Have a good one.
My point may be pedantic, it may not effect someone, or the economy, or whatever but DRS deposits are a price increase.
Pre DRS, I would buy my PET bottle of Coke for say €1.50. That price included the liquid product and the container. I owned the container as I paid for it.
Now, under DRS, I purchase the same bottle of Coke for €1.65 (including 0.15 deposit). I only own the liquid in this container but do not own the container unless I forego the deposit. How is that not a price increase?
There is several ways at come at this and they all lead to the same conclusions, this is a tax or a price increase and it is not just limited to 15 or 25 cent.
Back in the day when a dustbin would always work and you didn't have to travel miles to be met with the finger of non.
We would place these items into bins that were convenient and had 100% uptime, this lead to a subsidy on our collections fees because the agent would sell these items on to supplement their revenue.
Now, that revenue stream is gone, so the collection agents remove that subsidy, increasing the cost of collection.
But I'm sure someone is going to be along shortly to tell me that isn't a price increase and just bloody clap for the logo.
The CPI should be told about this. They do not include the deposit as part of the price, when doing their monthly calculations. And Revenue need to stop their silly VAT treatment of the deposit.
https://www.revenue.ie/en/vat/accounting-for-vat/deposit-return-scheme/index.aspx
Interesting point arises if I am interpreting this correctly:
"A VAT liability arises on the deposits relating to containers that are not returned to the Deposit Return Scheme. Under VAT law, only the Scheme Operator must account for and pay VAT relating to deposits on unreturned containers. This liability does not affect the consumer or any of the businesses in the supply chain for the product."
Does DRS have a Vat liability on these unreturned deposits?
What are you talking about?
Revenue (Hint in the Name) have it covered.
It is calculated per taxable period. There is no assumption that any deposit will remain unredeemed forever. It could cross several taxable periods.
https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/tdm/value-added-tax/part10-special-schemes/deposit-return-scheme/deposit-return-scheme.pdf
But do you agree that DRS will have some sort of Vat liability?
I do, but never on the customer buying a can or a bottle. Do you agree that a deposit which can be claimed back is not the same as a price rise which the consumer can never get back?
My take is as follows: A brand new product in introduced within or outside of DRS, it the price is X and a deposit is charged on part of the product which may be refunded-it is not a price rise. If you add a deposit on an existing item in the market and you "cannot claim ownership" of the whole product-including packaging, that is a price rise.
Of course the consumer finances Re-Turns VAT liability, who else do you think does? or where do you think that money comes from?
My understanding of VAT is that it is a sales tax imposed by government, and collected on behalf of government by the retailer to be remitted to Revenue. It does not form any part of the intrinsic value of a product, or the profit element added by the retailer. The more profit, the more VAT has to be collected and remitted. Donald Trump thinks it is something else.
Indirectly yes, but the wording from Revenue indicates, to me there is a direct liablity to containers not returned which the DRS is sitting on millions of €!
The product is the empty can or bottle which they have charged 15 cent or 25 cent on.
That is the intrinsic value that has been placed on those items.
If re-turn are making money from selling products that is liable to VAT. In that instance they are the retailer.
You yourself have provided the links from Revenue.
Nobody in the supply chain gets to keep the VAT. They just collect it for the Revenue.
Who claimed otherwise?
This is exactly how I do it every time, never had a problem, sure it might add three to five minutes on to my time shopping, but that is a small price to pay. Where I go I can see who is on checkout duty and which register and probably get the time back by picking the right queue when on the way out.
