Taxpayer Paid PropagandaA Tory government would encourage schemes under which people would be paid to recycle, shadow chancellor George Osborne is due to announce.
I hate the media. They just spew out the shite that the politicians want them too and hope that no one notices the con. I personally am SICK TO DEATH of envirofascism being rammed down my gullet, but I do need to take a deep breath, and make sure I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, I don't want to see the "environment" damaged either.
But I also don't like being lied to and conned, so that the same old bunch of control mongers can take the royal piss out of the taxpayer and public in general. So, let us go through this article an point out the rotten nature of politics in Britain today.
The very first line above gets us off to a VERY bad start. Every time a party talks about paying people, or giving things away for free, remember this is bullshit. The government only has money that it takes from us, the taxpayer in the first place. Thus this attempt to make it sound positive, by bribing people into doing their recycling has a cost. A big one, when you take into account the admin, bureaucracy and waste that will be involved.
Mr Osborne will argue that current government policies are unpopular and suggest that "instead of using sticks, we can use carrots" to boost recycling.
Again, like a used car salesmen, he tries to spin it that this is in some way, more positive. It might feel like it to the person getting paid to alter their behaviour, but inside that carrot is a bigger stick. The stick of extra taxation, or at best regulation on companies to change their behaviour, which in turn, will usually manifest as extra cost to the consumer/taxpayer.
Firms in the US have shown how to "make it pay to go green", he will add.
What he forgets to say, is firms in the US quite possibly had no choice in the matter. Of course there are occasions when it pays to go green. When the packaging of a product costs more to make from new, than it would to collect, ship, clean, sort, reform, ship again. With today's modern packaging, this is actually quite rare. Some argue that aluminium cans for instance are worthwhile collecting, due to the very high initial cost of extracting the materials to make it. This could be what he is talking about, with American companies that do pay a "return price" on a can of soda, for example.
I have to ask the question though. If it REALLY is in the companies interest to recollect these cans, then why aren't companies just doing that anyway? All good companies try to make themselves as efficient as possible and huge companies like Coca Cola, will have nailed their process down to be as efficient as possible. Yet throughout most of the world, they don't pay people to return their cans. Why not? The reason I think is clear and that reason is because it doesn't pay at all. It loses them money, so if they can get away with it, they will.
Now obviously just the economic side of things shouldn't be all that matters, but I will come on to that later. For now, let us just realise we are being lied to again and being green won't pay at all. I don't know about you, but I prefer to be given the facts and not a load of fantasy by a bunch of preening control freaks.
In a speech to pressure group the Green Alliance, he will also say landfill tax rates would not fall under the Tories.
"This will send a powerful signal to businesses and councils that innovative approaches... are possible," he will say.
Now this is the sort of thing that REALLY winds me up. He is of course, doing as all politicians do and trying to play to the audience. He is trying to con the hippies he is speaking to here, into believing that the Tories actually come up with this "policy", when in reality, they have no choice as long as Britain remains a member of the EU. The EU has decreed that the member nations (they like to call us states), have to cut their landfill. This actually stems from Holland on this occasion, as they simply have problems with landfill, due to them being under sea level and the problems this causes for the water table.
The fact Britain has no such problems and could quite easily landfill forever more, without running out of space, doesn't matter. We could quite happily continue to landfill rubbish, that will decompose one day, but until then, who cares if we bury it, as long as it is done right? You syphon the gas off of it for a while, providing much needed alternate energy. You then cover it over and have a wildlife reserve on top. Or a golf course. Or a shopping centre. Or whatever you want, because let's face it, we simply don't care what is under the ground. Landfill is the best solution for rubbish we truly don't want or need. It is cheap, safe and has very little effect on the environment. Much less than burning it, or worse, trying to reform it when it is economically retarded to do so.
The Tories, like the pathetic, spineless and subservient muppets that they are, choose to take their orders from the out of touch centre. They really are a waste of space and prove that nothing will change under them. They will tinker around the edges, but they will retain the one way ticket to shit hole that has been selected for this country.
Mr Osborne will tell the Green Alliance that he has found his solution in the US, where, as in the UK, councils pay a tax on every tonne of rubbish they send to landfill.
Did he say the US or the USSR there? Perhaps it was a typo? Does he not know that the council is funded by, errrrrrr, the taxpayer? The council will simply pass these costs on to the fools that put these idiots in charge. Yes you guessed it us, the gullible tax payer. Now I don't want to throw that baby out with the bath water, so I am going to put my positive alternative. I agree that someone has to take ownership of the fact that some rubbish needs to be dealt with. Silly me, I used to think that is what my council tax was for, after all it is so huge. However, because that scheme was based on councils being able to do what they thought best, instead of taking their orders like a bitch from the centre, as they do now. Heck even that old method probably wasn't the optimum method, but here is my proposal, that is fair.
When a product is made, part of the cost of that product should be factored in for the disposal of rubbish. Now that clearly means that people should no longer have to fund rubbish collection again from their homes, because it will be paid for up front on buying the product. This will have a number of effects.
Companies will look at ways to get that cost as low as possible. So they will not put unnecessary packaging on the product, as it will become too expensive and people won't buy it. Instead they will either use the absolute minimum of packaging, or look at a scheme of REUSING containers or packaging. You know like the old days, people would take their containers to the shops and take the product away. Now people might not want to do that, so fine, companies that want to make it convenient will be able to, but at a slight extra cost for taking care of the waste. Only fair and people will have the choice, as will the companies. All of that extra "rubbish tax" should go to the local area where the product is to be sold, as they will be the ones who have to get rid of the vast bulk of it. I would consider removing this cost for products that are shipped abroad and then it is up to that country whether they introduce a tax to take care of it their side of things.
In conjunction with this, and sorry, but we would have to withdraw from the EU to do this, we should allow the local ELECTED authorities to decide HOW they will dispose of their rubbish. Heck, they may choose to outsource it to 3rd world countries who could do with the money and may be able to do something with it. Or they may choose to landfill it. Or they may choose to burn it or worse, recycle it. It will be up to each local area to decide on how they are to dispose of their rubbish. The people will have REAL accountability and will ultimately decide how their local area deals with it. Hell they may even change their minds from time to time. Whatever the local scheme costs, will be what the initial cost on the products will be. Call it disposal tax or whatever, but at the end of the day, good behaviour will be what people want to do if they want to keep their costs down and being responsible for their own actions. If they want disposable packaging, then they will be able to, at a fair cost to them and society.
Me personally, I would vote for whatever the cheapest and least harmful to my local area was. If that means shipping it to China, then fine, as long as they are willing to take the coin, that is their choice. Otherwise I would go right back to land fill, which is the cheapest and most sensible way of dealing with it. If anyone saw that programme on what would happen if humans disappeared tomorrow, you will have noticed that ALL traces of human life would be GONE in a few of hundred years. Thus what we bury is of no consequence at all in the big scheme of things.
What's even better about my scheme, is that the best way of doing things, will be spread throughout the country. No town will want to have unnecessary expense on their products, so people will vote in the people with the best solutions. If their town gets it wrong, they will vote them out. If they get it badly wrong, then they may go and use a neighbouring town for shopping instead, which will REWARD the most efficient towns. Failing councils will get booted out quick smart and there will be real incentive for local level politicians to get it right.
You know it makes sense. Anyway, that was my plan, so back to gormless George of Blue Labour.
He is expected to highlight some US companies which offer to cut the landfill tax bill by increasing recycling rates.
Weasel words. As I said before, if it was net cheaper to recycle than just throw away, then that is what companies would be doing now. What his little plan DOESN'T factor in, is the immense subsidies that recycling companies would need to be paid by, you know who.
These firms use financial incentives to get the public on board - the more people recycle, the more they can earn - and then themselves earn a share of the savings in landfill tax payments to local authorities.
Again, all funded by the tax payer. Now if the tax payer decided this was the best method in their area, then that is fine, as they have to pay for it. Heck, you might even see the benefit, as it means tramps will go around picking up your rubbish for you. If that truly was the case, then maybe that would be part of the scheme companies would use to reduce their costs in my scheme. The good thing with my scheme, is the rubbish will get collected one way or another, but it will be in everyone's interest to get the best method. With the subsidised recycling method, the benefit is slanted in the favour of recycling companies and the taxpayer is penalised.
In some communities, such schemes have increased the amount of household waste being recycled by more than 200%, Mr Osborne will add.
"I want to see this innovative approach rolled out across the UK."
Again this makes the assumption that recycling is the ultimate and best way. I refute that. I suggest reusing is a better way, but that even if people wanted to just throw away, then they could do that at a relatively low cost to their pocket and to the environment. Can you imagine the bureaucracy that would need to be involved in this scheme too? The costs would be immense, but because they are all hidden "commie style", George thinks it is great. It ain't and you are a moron George. Hiding sticks in carrots doesn't fool me, but I do fear many could fall for it. This is the problem with Socialism, it wraps turds up so nicely, that only the truly anal (like me) who pay attention to these things, are willing to do a turd scan on the package being offered.
