5p charge for plastic bags from October 2015 to cut usage

[turbobloke]

0000 said:

I don't understand why we can't have the paper grocery bags they seem to have in the States.

Me too, but AIUI in Scotland they get taxed as well. Kerching (VAT).

ETA exemptions:

• Small paper bags, no greater than 175mm x 260mm, without a handle and/or a gusset. These types of bags are generally used for small items such as greeting cards.

• Small paper bags, no greater than 155mm x 80mm, without a handle but with a gusset of no more than 50mm. These types of bags are generally used for pick and mix confectionary or in pharmacies for non-prescription medicines.

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 9th August 10:16

[Randy Winkman]

Didn't Pickles give us a year ago the "first ever guidance issued by the Government on how councils can and should deliver weekly rubbish collections". Funny how some people say we have too many rules, unless the rules are theirs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

What happened to that? Apparently some councils are trying to move to collections every 3 weeks. Dont they know how angry some PHers are going to get?

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

Didn't Pickles give us a year ago the "first ever guidance issued by the Government on how councils can and should deliver weekly rubbish collections". Funny how some people say we have too many rules, unless the rules are theirs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

What happened to that? Apparently some councils are trying to move to collections every 3 weeks. Dont they know how angry some PHers are going to get?

Some people - on here? Quotes, links?

Every three weeks...that'll go down well, on Mumsnet too.

[Eric Mc]

turbobloke said:

I see what you did there. Presumably it's better to recycle such emotions. After recent posts you had better be sure you put them in the correct cranial memory centre and not leave your mouth open a couple of inches.

Gosh - for a chap who gets uptight when he perceives that a debate is getting a bit personal, you may need to reassess that line of argument.

[NicD]

turbobloke said:

Some people - on here? Quotes, links?

Every three weeks...that'll go down well, on Mumsnet too.

will drive us to insinkerators, can just stockpile the bottles, cans, paper till collection. Passes the buck to the water company to filter and recycle the mashed up food etc.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

turbobloke said:

I see what you did there. Presumably it's better to recycle such emotions. After recent posts you had better be sure you put them in the correct cranial memory centre and not leave your mouth open a couple of inches.

Gosh - for a chap who gets uptight when he perceives that a debate is getting a bit personal, you may need to reassess that line of argument.

Sense of humour failure? Miss the smiley?

It's not as though I called you a fg clueless sthead ctfaced tt and I suspect strongly that while you were falling over yourself straining to find a rebuke for a harmless remark involving a humorous non-abusive joke, everybody else could see what was going on. No sensitive souls should be harmed by this right to reply.

HTH

On topic: PH need to check whether this needs to be taxed for single use...

[bitchstewie]

turbobloke said:

OK but not fine by others though, with small retailer opt-outs and shopkeepers potentially pocketing the non-VAT element, it's a waste of legislative time, that goes beyond a family walking around with one bag too many (not that we can judge strength of bags at a distance but hey ho).

You've lost me a little on the non-VAT piece?

In an ideal world you'd modify behaviour, so maybe charging is simply a blunt instrument, but again, if it reduces usage I don't see why anyone would object tbh.

[Eric Mc]

turbobloke said:

Sense of humour failure? Miss the smiley?

It's not as though I called you a fg clueless sthead ctfaced tt and I suspect strongly that while you were falling over yourself straining to find a rebuke for a harmless remark involving a humorous non-abusive joke, everybody else could see what was going on. No sensitive souls should be harmed by this right to reply.

HTH

On topic: PH need to check whether this needs to be taxed for single use...

It does seem you require of others a standard of debate which is a standard you aren't too concerned about applying to yourself. That's OK. I'll just bear that in mind for the future.

[technodup]

bhstewie said:

life's too short to get bitter about a fking wastebin

I'm not bitter, I just don't care.

[Eric Mc]

That's obvious.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

Didn't Pickles give us a year ago the "first ever guidance issued by the Government on how councils can and should deliver weekly rubbish collections". Funny how some people say we have too many rules, unless the rules are theirs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

What happened to that? Apparently some councils are trying to move to collections every 3 weeks. Dont they know how angry some PHers are going to get?

Some people - on here? Quotes, links?

Every three weeks...that'll go down well, on Mumsnet too.

Do you think we have too many rules and regulations? Lots of people do. And lots of them are Tories, like Mr Pickles. who then make up rules and regulations but don't care because they are about things they think we should all be doing.

Bury Council has a load of kerfuffle going on about 3 weekly collections.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

turbobloke said:

Sense of humour failure? Miss the smiley?

It's not as though I called you a fg clueless sthead ctfaced tt and I suspect strongly that while you were falling over yourself straining to find a rebuke for a harmless remark involving a humorous non-abusive joke, everybody else could see what was going on. No sensitive souls should be harmed by this right to reply.

HTH

On topic: PH need to check whether this needs to be taxed for single use...

It does seem you require of others a standard of debate which is a standard you aren't too concerned about applying to yourself. That's OK. I'll just bear that in mind for the future.

totally wrong as usual (nb note another upcoming smiley) I don't get uptight I simply describe posts.

Here's some practice at spotting harmless social bantercourse so you can differentiate it from any form of personalised mild or severe abuse in future.

An explanation is included to avoid any possibility of offence being taken.

1. Lighten up, seriously! (apparent contradiction)
2. If I took repliles like that as personal and tried to upbraid everyone replying to me, then like you I'd have no time for posting. (mutual self-deprecation as frequent posters)
3. Get real man! (70s pastiche humour)
4. Wow that was tetchy, wrong time of the thread? (edgy and risky but worth it)
5. If you get used to my banter I'll get used to your hypocrisy (funny because it's true)

Optional fun quiz...who said earlier today, at 0845 hrs in this thread, before rebuking me, when upbraiding yet another PHer who dared to disagree:
"What a mean spirited, nasty approach to life"?
Answers on a postcard to Eric in case he forgot it was him, ooops cancel the quiz I just gave the answer away!

<---------------------------------- smiley

bhstewie said:

turbobloke said:

OK but not fine by others though, with small retailer opt-outs and shopkeepers potentially pocketing the non-VAT element, it's a waste of legislative time, that goes beyond a family walking around with one bag too many (not that we can judge strength of bags at a distance but hey ho).

You've lost me a little on the non-VAT piece?

In England, as in Scotland, of the 5p 'tax' (charge) on a bag, the relevant government gets 20% which is 1p in VAT for every bag. In Scotland there's nothing to stop shops keeping the other 4p, and in England we have the government's "promise" that the other 4p will go to good causes. That may or may not refer to shopkeepers, we shall see.

bhstewie said:

In an ideal world you'd modify behaviour, so maybe charging is simply a blunt instrument, but again, if it reduces usage I don't see why anyone would object tbh.

Why would I modify behaviour when there's no rational basis for it?

Government says jump for no reason and saps reply how high? No thanks, if politicians have daft priorities and daft ideas and introduce daft policies they can expect to have their daftness pointed out at the very least.

[Eric Mc]

When a politician announces that he is going to abolish or cut rules and regulations - be very, very skeptical. The usual trick is to introduce a whole new bunch of rules and regulations which are supposed to simplify the previous rules and regulations but in actual fact make everything more complex.

A very good case is Osborne's recent "simplification" (as he called it) of how dividend income is taxed. It is now so "simple" that even tax experts are struggling to work out EXACTLY how these new rules really work.

[turbobloke]

Just over 24 hours ago in pointing out a sane comment on this daft tax I quoted M Flynn Esq who said:

Michael Flynn of the Packaging and Film Association said:

This is a symbolic political decision, not an environmental or scientific one.

I then said "he would say that" and added that even so, he's correct.

[Eric Mc]

turbobloke said:

Why would I modify behaviour when there's no rational basis for it?

Government says jump for no reason and saps reply how high? No thanks, if politicians have daft priorities and daft ideas and introduce daft policies they can expect to have their daftness pointed out at the very least.

Careful now, you are using up your smiley ration at an alarming rate.

My belief is that the "smiley" is the last refuge of the unfunny.

[bitchstewie]

Personally I think you're too pre-occupied seeing it as government interference so make it a political point rather than simply seeing the end goal as a good one.

We don't need the sheer volume of plastic bags we have.

I'm no raging environmentalist but even I can see that.

Personally I suspect any legislation would be better targeted at the amount of packaging that stuff comes in these days, but that's just me.

[jmorgan]

I am going to get a spiv outfit and hang around outside shops "oi, ssspt, wan some bags, top quality, 4p to you guvnor"

[0000]

It seems there's such a thing as biodegradable plastic bags and other countries have made these mandatory for bags intended for short term use.

It won't raise any money, but isn't it a better solution?

[marshalla]

0000 said:

It seems there's such a thing as biodegradable plastic bags and other countries have made these mandatory for bags intended for short term use.

It won't raise any money, but isn't it a better solution?

They still need to be manufactured and distributed in large quantities.

Edited by marshalla on Sunday 9th August 11:54

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

turbobloke said:

Why would I modify behaviour when there's no rational basis for it?

Government says jump for no reason and saps reply how high? No thanks, if politicians have daft priorities and daft ideas and introduce daft policies they can expect to have their daftness pointed out at the very least.

Careful now, you are using up your smiley ration at an alarming rate.

My belief is that the "smiley" is the last refuge of the unfunny.

How ironic, when I only added the extras as you needed them to understand a post.

Have another just in case

Also, reference the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier:

Eric Mc said:

1st line in HMRC's guidance on self employment "Being self employed is not a matter of choice, it's a matter of fact"

http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=906010&i=600&mid=0&nmt=Tax+Avoidance+%3D+Immoral

Eric Mc said:

But I might

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing//topic.asp?h=0&f=210&t=1111026&mid=18454&i=13&nmt=ERIC+MC+++-+&mid=18454

With thanks to the shiny new PH search function

Smileys are now OK again as Eric Mc uses them, praise be

Back on topic...again...but not expecting it to continue...

Have we moved on from here, where MPs held that our forthcoming Plastic Bag 'tax' was a mess:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/06...