Talk:California Redemption Value

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California Redemption Value article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about California Redemption Value. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about California Redemption Value at the Reference desk.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YellowEarth13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended Additions

I know little about CRV, so I came here to learn. Allow me to suggest the following additions:

What is the difference b/w the refund value and the redemption value? Why are the redemption centers filthy? Why do they routinely open late and close early? Why do they have "caps" on the number of "customers" they service daily? How much revenue does the state collect annually in unclaimed refunds? How much in the tax portion of CRV? Does the beverage container need to say "CA CRV" in order to receive a refund? Comparison to other states' or other countries' deposit programs would be helpful. I am most familiar with Germany's; in comparison, California's is a mess. --72.47.85.102 (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If according to CA law the CRV is part of the basic price of the product and not a separate fee, is it actually legal that stores advertise all beverage sales with prices not including the CRV but in addition to the product price? It comes out that consumers are taxed on the CRV amount because the CRV is part of the product price, but then they also pay the CRV amount on top of any advertised or shelf price of the products, as if the CRV were NOT already part of the price. These can't both be true at once. Anyone care to weigh in on this topic to explain it? Anna8800 (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wine bottles

I just recycled 10 empty bottles of wine and got $1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.202 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MCR> That is interesting. Perhaps they were what California recycling centers call "co-mingled" The actual law otherwise does exclude wine bottles. I've been trying for a long time to find out why? All inquires just point to the CRV legislation...but that does NOT explain the logic behind excluding wine bottles. There is a lot more glass in a wine bottle. I did a tiny unscientific experiment and found about twice as much glass weight at least (often more) in a wine bottle than a beer bottle. What reasoning excludes wine bottles from CRV. Alcohol content ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrodgers2 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Redemption Value. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511103101/http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/bottle_bill to http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/bottle_bill

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Tra$h" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tra$h. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]