Food prices could rise again thanks to new ‘packaging tax’
Industry leaders are likely to transfer the majority of the new ‘packaging tax’ to consumers.
The new tax – or the expanded manufacturer’s responsibility (EPR), which should offer the latest data about the packages used by firms until October 1, is possible to put a “important financial burden üzerinde on the British retailers and households, a survey of leading retailers for the British retail consortium (BRC).
It is estimated that more than 80 percent of the cost of the new tax is possible to transfer to consumers.
BRC, the sector, higher employer national insurance contributions and increasing national life fee due to retailers’ £ 5 billion extra employment costs, following the budget of last year to cover very little space to meet extra costs, he said.
Authorized, EPR, which will cost industrial billions, said that when the food prices are already increasing rapidly, it would be “another inflation pressure ve and that the Bank of England will only add 0.5 percent to food inflation.
In addition to the financial impact, approximately 85 percent of retailers said that the administrative and compliance burden they face increased significantly as a result of EPR.
Companies are required to inform comprehensive information about the composition and packaging amounts they put on the market.
Tax is collected in any company purchased by household peoples and producing packages that are eliminated and disposed of retailers and brands.
The fees are based on the materials used and the quantities.
In the questionnaire, 85 percent of retailers planned to increase the sustainable packaging rate placed on the market and 78 percent of them planned to reduce the total packaging volume they put into the market.
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
However, the BRC government called on to provide more clarity about how consumers and the environment will benefit, given the prices will increase.
In addition, the government invites the government to place the legal ring-pension to collect and operate local recycling by local councils and enable fund improvements in local recycling systems.
In BRC, Food and Sustainability Director Andrew Opie said: “retailers support the pollier and make significant changes to reduce and improve their packaging.
“But the packaging tax is also a multi-mileyar pound tax by consumers during a cost of life. They will ask: What do we buy for higher prices?
“Unless the funds are spent transparently and effectively, EPR threatens to be another burden for an already taxation industry that has no concrete benefit for customers or the environment.”
Encir, one of the largest glass bottle manufacturers in the UK, which pioneered the production of low carbon production with hydrogen power and investment in biofuel, described the tax as a “own target ına that would hit the most glass wine and souls due to weight basis.
According to the policy, a standard bottle of wine costs annex 9p, the cost of a 330ml beer bottle will increase approximately 4P, and mood bottles will cost extra 11p under tax.
Encir warned that these price increases can be transferred to consumers.
ENCIRC General Manager Sean Murphy said, “The new glass bottle tax is an economic and environmental target and hit UK companies that produce much better packages than plastic for the environment.
“This tax will hit everyone – in supermarkets, bars and glass factories that create thousands of jobs. A painful blow for businesses like us who invest in green technology.
“The government should press the pause button on this issue.”
Local Government Association (LGA) Environmental Spokesman Arooj Shah said: “Councils have worked hard to provide recycling services that the residents are satisfied with, and there is an option to pay the producers, to reduce packaging, to absorb and transfer the cost.
“Councils support the principle of pollutant-priest.
Iz We reject the call of the people-fencing, which says that funds can only go to collections. In practice, in practice, the call for industrial control of council waste services. Everywhere is different and democratically selected councils should be free to invest in their most helping residents. ”
