They were charging a flat rate ($240/year) for households to buy a sticker to dispose of as much waste as they wanted. The town was losing money and was concerned about doubling the annual price, as it would disproportionately affect low-income and smaller households, so they started charging $65/year plus per-bag of trash. This lead to a decrease in the amount of trash being discarded so that their municipal refuse program is now breaking even instead of losing something like $65k/year, and it costs smaller households significantly less than if they had doubled the all-you-can-discard sticker.
That’s my summary, but the full article is a quick read and contains some interesting details.
Where do you think all the real ecological damage and cost is coming from? Your taxes paid the subsidies of these businesses who get breaks on their trash, causing this issue.
You very clearly didn’t read the story. Most households are paying LESS than they were when they were allowed to discard unlimited trash for a flat rate. Hopefully because they are being encouraged to recycle more and produce less waste, rather than just dumping it on the side of the road. It’s a simple case of demand elasticity in response to a pricing-structure change. If people can save money by throwing away less stuff, they throw away less stuff.
I agree that corporations should pay their share to handle their own cleanup, but I don’t see any direct link between that and household waste disposal, or any indication from this story that corporations are getting any breaks. It’s a very small township in rural Massachusetts. They don’t even have municipal trash collection. People have to take their own trash to the transfer station/landfill.
I read it.
You’re missing my point, which isn’t your fault. I’m clearly not explaining myself correctly, and frankly. I’m too tired to try again, so I bow out.
They were charging a flat rate ($240/year) for households to buy a sticker to dispose of as much waste as they wanted. The town was losing money and was concerned about doubling the annual price, as it would disproportionately affect low-income and smaller households, so they started charging $65/year plus per-bag of trash. This lead to a decrease in the amount of trash being discarded so that their municipal refuse program is now breaking even instead of losing something like $65k/year, and it costs smaller households significantly less than if they had doubled the all-you-can-discard sticker.
That’s my summary, but the full article is a quick read and contains some interesting details.
(Edit: corrected a typo)
It’s called putting the responsibilities of corporate onto citizens.
How is a corporation responsible for my household trash?
Where do you think all the real ecological damage and cost is coming from? Your taxes paid the subsidies of these businesses who get breaks on their trash, causing this issue.
But we should pay more. Got it
You very clearly didn’t read the story. Most households are paying LESS than they were when they were allowed to discard unlimited trash for a flat rate. Hopefully because they are being encouraged to recycle more and produce less waste, rather than just dumping it on the side of the road. It’s a simple case of demand elasticity in response to a pricing-structure change. If people can save money by throwing away less stuff, they throw away less stuff.
I agree that corporations should pay their share to handle their own cleanup, but I don’t see any direct link between that and household waste disposal, or any indication from this story that corporations are getting any breaks. It’s a very small township in rural Massachusetts. They don’t even have municipal trash collection. People have to take their own trash to the transfer station/landfill.
I read it. You’re missing my point, which isn’t your fault. I’m clearly not explaining myself correctly, and frankly. I’m too tired to try again, so I bow out.
Good evening