Environmental tax on WEEE: Welcome or not ?!

[saveplanet]

What also hinders people a lot from having their devices repaired is that very often they realize, by looking at the prices charged in stores, that a new machine is often less expensive than a repair (well heard, tt depends on the extent of the problem on the product but still! if it is a rubber to seal ...).

[iota]

I don't care I keep everything

besides I have an idea:
dismantle everything and resell on ebay for example in spare parts at 1 or 2 euros ...
who wants a tv remote control such brand such model?
who wants a washing machine pump such brand ... etc

After the carcass goes to the recycling center.
We pay in local taxes for that so I don't see where is the bp.

[crispus]

It is clear that we are in a “disposable” logic. Recycling serves to give consumers a good conscience, but the most econological is to make the product last ... at least as long as it is efficient.

A few years ago I read an article (in "What to choose" I think) on this subject. An engineer from Bosh confessed: "quality is good, but it should not last too long".
Otherwise, the company is no longer making a profit.

Result: from conception on provides a "fragility" in the device, in a place inaccessible without costly hours of labor.

The same article said that Michelin had difficulties because of "indestructible" tires ...

In recent years, the "communication" budget has grown much faster than that of R&D, the goal being to give an image of reliability to the product (by playing on the "past" of the company) while selling "junk" ".

A few days after the end of the warranty (it happened to me), the device is broken, and the customer hears himself answer: "My good sir, it will cost you less to buy a new one!".

10 years ago I bought a "brand" dishwasher with the intention of "making it last" ... That was before I read the article in question.

Result: the keys of the electronic programmer have "dropped" one after the other: in fact the plastic loses its elasticity after 2 years and breaks when the button is pressed.

In after sales, we completely change the programmer ... well, if the device is less than 5 years old, otherwise: trash - sorry, recycling.

I repaired it myself by tinkering with spring blades. I took the opportunity to pierce the facade and make accessible the delayed start button, originally integrated in the programmer: to have this option you had to pay around 120 €. Expensive for 5 cm² of plastic!

I take this opportunity to react to the erroneous notion of "polluter pays": a taxed company passes the cost on to its products, not to its shareholders.

The most suitable slogan would be "customer-pays" or even "polluted-pays": companies do not hesitate to ask for aid from the state or local communities to "meet" environmental standards: therefore at the expense of the taxpayer! I agree with Gegyx's rant ...

[iota]

I believe Crispus, that you sum up the feeling of a lot of us.
In addition, having worked in small boxes, the boss had to recover the industrial batteries, which made him shit downright (forgive me the term) and in addition he didn’t give a damn dump neither seen nor known.
I think these "small" taxes are there to encourage businesses to accept items for recycling.

[Other]

Hello,
Recycling has a cost, and I think it should be included in the purchase price, without being forced to use the term tax, but drowned in all our taxes.
Currently when I go to put tires on my car, the mechanic included in his price the recovery of old tires. The same should apply to oil changes.
When I go to buy a lead-acid battery on my car, if I return the hurdy-gurdy to the store, it gives me $ 5 (this avoids seeing batterries in the trash, or in nature. It is the same with certain large hardware store which recovers old batteries, it recovers nickel from the cell envelope.
20 years ago when walking in the forest, we sometimes saw a refrigerator, or a car carcass, or tires, it is seen that very rarely, on the one hand the heavy fines for the one who gets (rarely to catch). but above all to have made it easy to pick up these objects ..

Andre

[bham]

If it hurts you to give a low% in favor of recycling I don't really believe that you are econologists ... Gegyx (does it hurt you to pay for the environment? Bravo the eco!) Can always find arguments ...

It's funny I seem to see a copy / pasted from our last discussion there: https: //www.econologie.com/forums/les-profits-de-total-et-ses-investissements-en-enr-t2591-10.html and that makes me mustard in the nose.

Can we not wonder about this forum on the merits of a tax without being treated as a bad eco-friendly, an eco-friendly stingy, even a stingy short-haired, or even unconscious, even oh supreme insult, anti-econologist ???
It gets really boring, to stay polite. And in addition it lowers the debate.
If it's humor, it's not super level and if it isn't, it's serious, because you make a value judgment that is only yours.
Christophe, reassure me, you haven't become a "Panurge sheep" to the point of believing that all "environmental taxes" are necessary evils (or goods)? because it seems to me to have detected in you a more advanced critical sense so far.
So I'm going to repeat myself again but the problem is not, for me at least, to pay an additional cost of 15 € every x years by buying a household appliance, the problem is to ask questions about the actual destination of the tax. And it is not to be a bad ecologist to ask the question. It is even for me a civic duty.
If it's so that boxes are created by sorting and recycling, well let's admit, that creates jobs, if it's to give Emmaüs a job, well no problem, although Emmaus did not waited for this tax to recycle (see last report on 20H TF1 yesterday I think) but if it is to benefit subsidiaries of large multinationals like Suez or Cie Générale des Eaux, which have already taken control of the garbage market housewives by exploding prices, well here I say shit! There's enough and hello the decrease !!!!
Because the decrease, it only goes in one direction, always a little more, always for the same, the poor 'c..s of taxpayers. And I could support that by telling you about the asbestos removal markets (it is often the State which therefore pays the taxpayer) and others.

I take this opportunity to react to the erroneous notion of "polluter pays": a taxed company passes the cost on to its products, not to its shareholders.
The most suitable slogan would be "customer-pays" or even "polluted-pays": companies do not hesitate to ask for aid from the state or local communities to "meet" environmental standards: therefore at the expense of the taxpayer! I agree with Gegyx's rant ...

I agree !!!

What do you want me to argue? Do you find that the waste is well recycled in France? For me it is what is on the ground that counts, ie nothing (or almost) for the moment in France for the treatment of WEEE!

If I ask you to develop or argue, it's because I don't know what's being done in terms of recycling and I'm just asking to know. For the moment your answer does not suit me, saying that there is nothing is fine but what are you basing yourself on to say that?

[goodeco]

Not welcome no well
I join you all in the idea
Here are 2 laws that are already applied and that go in the right direction.

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/texteconsolide/UPEAC.htm

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/Un ... VX9200049L

For a small summary found on the net:

Law No. 75-633 of July 15, 1975
entrusted the municipalities and groups of municipalities with the task of disposing of household waste.

Law No. 92-646 of July 13, 1992
defines a completely new management of household waste.
Updating the previous law, it provides:
the abolition, from 2002, of landfills as they exist today,
to only authorize the Storage Centers of Ultimate Waste, which is waste
waste obtained after the multiple treatments possible;
the introduction of a landfill tax, set at 35 F per tonne in 1997 (40 F in 1998, etc.);
the right to public information, in particular through the creation of Local Information and Monitoring Commissions (CLIS);
the development of departmental household waste disposal plans.
These plans govern the establishment of a network of modern facilities which favors the principle of proximity
(limitation of waste transport) and optimal recovery
(through recycling, composting and energy recovery during incineration);
incentive to recycle packaging.
Decree No. 92-377 of April 1, 1992, which came into force on January 1993, XNUMX, requires
"any producer or importer to contribute or provide for the elimination of its packaging waste".
This decree sets a target of 75% recovery (material, organic or energy) of packaging by 2002.

The packers themselves choose the device for recovering their packaging: the deposit,
individual recovery or collective contribution.
In the case of the latter, they are required to join Eco-Emballages
or ADELPHE (exclusively reserved for wine and spirits producers),
thus contributing financially to the elimination of their packaging waste.
Eco-Emballages then transfers part of this contribution to communities in order to help them.
to develop selective collection and recovery of household packaging waste



I am willing to pay, but there are limits.
By cons that we display on the price, the cost that we pay for
recycling I agree, just to raise awareness.

I think that this new ecotax (Eco to make green) is only there to make the balls… in platinum gilded with diamonds… .. for certain.
and moreover it goes very well in these times for a government that says green.

iota for the idea of ​​reselling on ebay it is very good but think of adding the ecotax

[Woodcutter]

[...] An appliance or domestic appliance will be "slightly taxed", in addition to now, obviously, for a good cause, recycling? Is that so ! I thought it was already the case ...

What do you mean ?

With this tax, there is an obligation for sellers to take back old comparable equipment, only in the case of the purchase of a similar new device.
This is what any good trader did: take back the old machine when he delivered the new one…

Nothing mandatory! It was just part of a commercial policy at the whim of each ...

I suppose that afterwards, he didn't throw it in the Seine, and that he had to pay to have them recycled, at the recycling center, a tax for professionals…

To have it recycled, nothing is certain and depends on the type of device ... Maybe it was treated only as waste!

An individual leaves his used device for picking up bulky items, or takes it to the recycling center, where it is taken care of, in the right recycling channel.

As long as there is an adapted sector, making the community bear the cost ...

I find it much more normal than for this type of service, which is not a public service and does not fall under any sharing solidarity, everyone pays (so little !!!) according to their desires for equipment ...

So the system worked without a new phony surcharge!

Pout... It quickly said that the system worked ...

[iota]

iota for the idea of ​​reselling on ebay it is very good but think of adding the ecotax

oops it's true! well seen !

[nonoLeRobot]

Calm down Bham anyway if there is a need for money to recycle if it is not taken from the citizen in the form of a tax, it will be taken otherwise, in the form of a tax for example, there is no magic anyway. So it seems a shame to fight for that especially for the sums involved.

For goodeco, I think that it is indeed up to the communities to recover the waste, it seems to me too complicated to manage for the merchants.



And if you want to buy a second-hand TV or if you don't want any more TV at all, you put it or your old TV and if you choose a merchant at random without buying a new one, he'll go crazy (and I understand).



Now the big interest I see taxing goods is also penalize imported products , which is not the case by other means (if it is the State (us) or the town hall (us) or other which pays). And that seems very important to me. [/ B]