What would be your opinion? What are some pros and cons you could see to having a law making it mandatory to return all bottles and cans in return for 10Cents per bottle/can like in the state of Michigan?
129858
It's a states rights issue.  It doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government
68481
This depends on whether the state has "lemon" laws. I need more details to be able to fully explain what possible consequences are.
117837
It's a way for them to limit your returns without a receipt. It was put in place due to the rise in shoplifting then returning items for the money.
346545
Not now, not ever....\n\nIt's bad enough they want us to buy petrol in litres, now they want beer that way...\n\nKilo's of spuds... but I only want 2 pounds....
98532
in america most states have had this ban for a while.  (i think new york for about 3 yrs, and ct about 2) numerous business owners have complained b/c it keeps customers away according to them.( bars/restaurants/nightclubs) as for the tax implications...i can only guess it must be pretty bad as cigs are highly taxed.
177699
Legal vs Illegal...penalized or not. What it all comes down to. The good ole boys have moved there factories to Mexico. Its the cost of doing business. We have seen it time and time again. We can have a thousand laws on the books but they will never enforced. Why because its the cost of doing business. We could give things away medical,dental,food stamps, ect...The cost of doing business. Look at the profits of Campbell Soup, Pampers, Hughie's, Proctor and Gamble check the stock market. All the cost of doing business...We have all played a roll. We buy and support these companies....LOL
519933
Pot dealers don't make much dough, 99.9% of them sell it to their buddies to pay for their own smoking, because you have to move hundreds of pounds to make a living with it.  It's not like coke, where you can move a single pound of it, and then buy a new car.  \n\nThe growers would lose a bit, but not as much as you'd think, even for the premium stuff, because they'd increase their yields and keep selling it. People will always pay for the convience of someone else doing it, especially for the awesome bud those folks can generate.  The growers are pretty far down on the list, it's the folks that bring it over the boarders that are the ones banking, and they'd lose out big time.  \n\nThe absolute BIGGEST losers would be the private prison companies that would lose 1000's of 'guests'.  Anything related to enforcement would be big too...however, the enforcement agents would be able to use their time arresting more violent offenders, and concentrate on people smugglers at the boarders.\n\nThe alcohol companies would be among the biggest losers.  Beer, wine and booze producers/distributors would be hit hard.  \n\nNext would be big pharma.  \n\nThe other industries wouldn't be affected to terribly much, at least in relation to the above.  \n\nHowever, Sara Lee and Hostess would see considerable gains ;-)
90351
Yep, I'll speculate, they are giving us shit gas. I'ts 2.65 in Wisconsin and only goes half the distance in my car too. There are places where gas isn't treated here, but now are great goverment wants to poison gas across the state. One way of not raising the taxes elsewhere, just buy twice as much gas. Use 2x's the amount-get2x's the tax.
397878
Assuming such value could be reasonable calculated, then I would have no problem with a legislature passing a law like this. It meets the intent of the 5th Amendment Takings Clause, and if the state decides they want towns to play nice -- that can't be a bad thing.\n\nThe only potential downside is the cost of litigation if lots of people start suing the towns and counties to recover what they think they might have potentially lost, based on what some zoning code did in another part of town. But that's a matter of writing the law intelligently and not allowing such legal loopholes.
642782
Try this link:\nhttp://mi-mall.michigan.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?storeId=10201&langId=-1&catalogId=10201\nIt will cost you ten bucks but under the circumstances, it sounds like it would be worth it
233222
if you are a reseller then  YES you will have to charge michigan sales tax @ 6%\nExempt due to Resale  If the products and materials produced are to be resold to an end user and that end user pays the sales tax, the reseller does not. This is simple for a business which acts as a "middleman".In the State of Michigan Sales Tax is 6% on material goods.As a reseller of goods and services we are required to collect sales taxes for the State of Michigan.\nbut if you are in auto manufacturer:\nExempt due to Industrial Process  Many manufactures take a broad view of this exemption. The auto manufacturers for instance may claim that every aspect of their business results in a car in the showroom and the buyer of that car pays the sales tax. This is definitely a red flag to auditors and we take the policy that only items directly contributing to the end product, for the most part elements of the end product qualify for this. We absolutely require a signed W9 on file if you choose this exemption and we will not be held responsible for clients qualifications for taking it.\nFor more details visit the site below and consult your CA or auditor.\nHope that helps..
6683
Good luck with that.  How do you differentiate between "this legislation is good for the US" and "This legislation is good for my buddy, Billy Bob" in an enforceable, consistent way, that doesn't just transfer all power to whoever decides what was intended as a favor and what wasn't?\n\nOf course, a step in the right direction would certainly be to make the federal tax code transparent and fair.  That helps eliminate (or at least illuminate) all the loopholes and exemptions and rebates for special interest groups.
290875
I'm against it- people dont know how to regulate themselves- besides, we have enough problems with alcohol- adding another addicting drug that alters your emotions and motor skills to the legal list is a bad idea.
463932
I don't think that it should be a Gov't choice...It should be the owner of the property choice....I have yet to be somewhere where smoke bothered me because most places are non smoking...bars here in Ohio aren't most anyway...and that doesn't bother me at all...maybe the next day after smelling my clothes and hair but my breath probably stinks just as bad after a night of drinks.  This is just a way of people controlling and getting money...one of the issues on the ballot if you read closely says money for the "clean air fund"...if they band smoking why would you need a clean air fund...and what on earth are you going to do with that money?  I prefer my money to go to my child's college fund...but If this passes I won't have a choice will I?
440748
I do not know of any such states off the top of my head.  I know NV can sell anything in a supermarket and WA wine and beer is available in the supermarkets.  It would seem odd to be able to purchase only wine and not beer.
217248
Well I'm from the peoples republic of California and we don't enjoy such right to carry laws here...so I have a hard time relating.  I don't understand why a state like Texas tolerates an illegal resident period....I would think a good ole boy state like Texas would be rounding up anyone without a green card and shipping them south....
525129
Absolutely legal - and a good idea if you can sell them.\n\nIt's called free enterprise.\n\nHowever, if you try to sell bottled water to hurricane victims for $20 a quart - you may be crossing the line into profiteering.