🚀 go-pugleaf

<berdpee@ami.com.au> wrote in message news:3cc5f9e1.1143185@news.ami.com.au...

> I have been proposing for years an equipment disposal tax, which
> should be applied to EVERY manufactured item. It works like this:
> The tax is paid by the manufacturer when the item is produced, the
> longer the life of the item the greater is the proportion of the tax
> refunded when the item has to be disposed of. Thus a quality
> product which lasts say 40 years might get a refund of 90% whereas
> a product which lasted 5 years would only get a refund of 5%.

Usual mindlessly silly, completely unworkable wank.

> After all why should the taxpayer have to shoulder
> the cost of disposal of manufactured items?

They would do that when they buy the goods
under your completely hare brained scheme.


>  Alan Liefting <aliefting@ihug.co.nz> wrote

> >Copied to these newsgroups for comment.
> >
> >
> >I am an electronics service technician who has worked in the industry
> >for 20 years.  I have seen a number of changes over that time.  I am
> >also a concerned environmentalist.
> >
> >As a technician my job is made more difficult for reasons I will
> >outline.  The cost of electronics consumer items which I service has
> >reduced over the years as a result of removal of tariffs, mass
> >production and globalised trade especially with countries which have
> >lower labour rates.  These same countries have poor environmental and
> >social protection policies.  Since the consumer products are cheap to
> >buy they are less likely to repaired when they fail.  Manufacturers are
> >becoming more reluctant to supply replacement spare parts for the
> >servicing industry.  If parts are available they tend to be quite
> >expensive.  Quite often this makes the goods uneconomic to repair.
> >Manufacturers are also closing some of their authorised service centres
> >for the products.  This makes it more difficult for the customers to
> >have the goods repaired.  Recently I discovered that at least one New
> >Zealand division of a major electronics company has shifted its spare
> >parts supply warehouse to Australia.  As an aside the parts currently in
> >the warehouse were discarded since it was uneconomic to ship them to
> >Australia.  I have a suspicion that this may cause more difficulties for
> >the electronic servicing trade.  I am sure it would take the service out
> >of the electronics service industry.
> >
> >As far as I can tell there is no lobby group for electrical and
> >electronics servicing trade.
> >
> >My view is that the manufacturers of a electrical equipment would prefer
> >to supply a replacement item rather than have a faulty item repaired.
> >They do this because it makes sound economic sense.  There is more money
> >to be made in supplying a $200 appliance than in supplying a $10
> >replacement spare part.  There is of course higher environmental costs
> >in discarding the appliance rather than having a repaired.  Some
> >appliances are built rather shoddily.  They have their own in-built
> >obsolecence.  They are built to a price and the price is low.  And of
> >course you get what you play for.  As a technician I quite often see a
> >number of manufacturing techniques that do actually shorten the lifetime
> >of appliance.
> >
> >Electrical, electronic and computer equipment is an ideal candidate for
> >"Extended Producer Responsibility".  This is where the manufacturer is
> >responsible for the correct recycling of product at the end of its
> >lifetime.  Evidence from other countries suggests that manufacturers
> >will only take serious responsibility for recycling of the products if
> >they are forced to do so by government legislation.  Manufacturers are
> >foisting the disposal of the products onto the end-user.  This is an
> >ideal arrangement for them since there is no costs to them.  The
> >end-user has difficulty in finding out how to dispose of this
> >equipment.  Local government agencies are avoiding the issue.  With the
> >current regime the environment, the rate player and the taxpayer are for
> >disposal.  The EU is becoming serious about disposal of electrical
> >goods.  The US, who tend to lack somewhat on enacting environmental
> >legislation especially if it in impinges on economic growth, are also
> >addressing the issue of disposal of electrical goods.  However just as
> >some countries are used as a cheap labour source by the so-called first
> >world countries they are also used as a dumping ground for discarded
> >equipment.  The cause of the poor environmental standards their country
> >is being polluted as a result of our affluence and weak environmental
> >laws.  I have anecdotal evidence of faulty electronics equipment and
> >scrap being sent to countries such as the Philippines and Sri Lanka.
> >
> >Electrical, electronic and computer equipment contains all manner of
> >difficult to recycle substances.  Some of the materials are hazardous.
> >Discarded equipment should be treated as hazardous goods.  It is high
> >time to control this increasingly significant portion of the waste
> >stream.
> >
> >
> >Alan Liefting
> >78 Flockton Street
> >St Albans
> >Christchurch
> >NEW ZEALAND
> >
> >Telephone:  (03)385-3830
>
> aeolus