I am sick an tired of these businesses selling air. You pay $4 for a "large chips" that is 1/3 air even sometimes 2/3. Mars bars and snickers went down to 53gms a bar, McDonalds "big mac" is tiny.
Where does it stop, an what can we do about it. The basic one is stop buying them, but what other options?
I don't think you understand anything about the carbon tax at all.
1) The carbon tax is not a revenue raising measure. The government reduced income tax such that lower and middle-income earners are more than compensated for what they would be paying on account of the carbon tax.
2) The carbon tax does not tax air, but taxes corporations for the right to dump pollution into it. Corporations also pay money for offshore dumping (into the ocean), and have done for years. Does that mean that going to the beach is no longer free?
hmmmm
Paizuri , while I agree that the Op was talking senseless, some of your points are not too right either.
1) The carbon tax is not a revenue raising measure.
hmm really ? tell this to the companies that are closing down because of the additional tax burden.
Yes there was some compensation, but it in now way offsets the direct and indirect costs imposed due to the tax.
2) The carbon tax does not tax air, but taxes corporations for the right to dump pollution into it.
So carbon dioxide is now a pollutant ? it's a lie to call it a carbon tax as carbon is not a gas in the first place.
We could talk more but this is not the place for it.
So carbon dioxide is now a pollutant ? it's a lie to call it a carbon tax as carbon is not a gas in the first place.
'Carbon Dioxide and Equivalent Pollutant Gases tax' sounds too much of a mouthful, so I guess carbon tax is appropriate?
Anyway, it is perhaps wrong to say that the Carbon tax is not a revenue raising measure. From an economics perspective, all kinds of Tax are government revenue. While consumers are not taxed directly, we are affected by businesses closing down / raising prices because of increasing costs…. and this will continue to happen until we reach a general equilibrium.
1) The carbon tax is not a revenue raising measure.
Ho, Ho, Ho.
More than that it will be used as a tool of control and regulation that has just begun. Lovely to pay 10% of it to the criminal United Nations, too. A global agenda for world gov and totalitarian control over every detail of our lives.
You are being taken for a ride, a very expensive one, and one where the prices are subject to change as time goes on, and will change.
A ride where the rules and costs will change. In the early stages it's always nice to not intro it too severely and offer all sorts of gadgets (energy-saving devices) to the silly tax-payer for 'free' to cope with the changes.
Boil the frog slowly. I'm sure the gov is getting no extra revenue from this 'environment-saving' activity & it will help 'save' the environment too! For realz! While we import stuff from China and elsewhere with MASSIVE environmental damage.
Your elitist buddies in the UN and their world government agenda thank you for your total ignorance and compliance. Agenda 21 for one and all.
More control and taxing over your daily lives under the banner of saving the environment from the biggest criminals doing the most damage to your freedoms, both personal and economic.
Just keep thinking you have those freedoms when all sides of the political fence answer to the same global elite advocating the same global agenda.
The effective company carbon tax rate for trade-exposed industries is around $1!
Another thing to note is that many families/individuals are being overcompensated for the levy.
Not only that, but the corporations that are eager to pay less in the carbon pricing scheme can easily do so by reducing carbon production.
Also it's not a tax after 2015, it will simply be trading between different organizations. The organizations that reduce carbon by planting trees or preventing rain forests from being burned can trade their carbon offsets with the corporations that find it more efficient to create carbon emissions.
The amazing thing is that Australia generates 1.5% of global emissions. That's really a high proportion! However any gains in reducing Australia's contribution will be offset by exporting more coal to China, etc.
I thought carbon tax was just a lousy excuse tax like the mining tax? If it is for the environment why would they stop the incentive for solar feed in tarrif? Shouldn't the government be encouraging evey household to have solar panels on their roofs to reduce pollution generated by other non environmental friendly ways?
The feed in tariff is as per the state governments. The Carbon Tax is as per the Federal Government.
And yes, the idea of the Carbon Tax is to make electricity more expensive. Then as a householder, you have the choice of:
1. Living it large and copping it sweet
2. Reducing your usage where you can
3. Investing in solar panels
Its a market based mechanism rather than a "big government" style subsidy.
Shouldn't the government be encouraging evey household to have solar panels on their roofs to reduce pollution generated by other non environmental friendly ways?
The solar panels on your roof are being paid for by expensive electricity bills that everyone pays.
The fact is that none of the green technologies pay for themselves or can stand on their own two feet on economic merit alone.
Let the Negs roll, but the fact's don't change.
This fact is changing.
I'm not super-optimistic on wind, except in very windy places of the world. But solar is another matter:
1. It is based on silicon semiconductor technologies.
2. Other silicon semiconductor technologies have shown dramatic increases in efficiency as more effort is put into developing them.
3. There is plenty of sunlight currently not being harvested
In most parts of Australia, the heaviest demand for electricity is when it is hot and people dial up their aircon. This is also when the solar panels are making the most electricity. When you take into account the capital costs of new power stations, I think solar is already paying for itself in terms of the big picture, and will soon be a more economical option for individuals without any subsidies at all if you live somewhere north of Hobart.
mrmarkau67: sorry but physics will kill solar power. It can only provide power that the sun provides. Even at 100% efficiency this will never be practical to power a city. For offseting small residents it might be fine, but we still need a real solution to replace coal power plants.
If we fix the power stations properly (something like fusion or other as yet unproven option) then this all becomes irrelevant. So ultimately solar is a short term stop gap and we need a long term plan (though it is still very useful in this role).
I'd also like to add that attempting to reproduce our current power demands is futile. We need to grow our enery production, this way to can do all manner of amazing things, like easily clean water and advanced material fabrication.
I don't think solar is a 100% solution. But it makes a nice complement to the new cleaner natural gas power stations. Especially in Australia where we use a lot of power for cooling residences.
They may figure out fusion power stations eventually. Its a very hard problem. But for now, the best way to benefit from fusion generated energy is to pop a panel on your roof, pick up some free joules from the sun and sell them back to your local electricity utility.
Please link to the actual companies that have closed down due to this 'catastrophic, wrecking ball through the Australian economy' carbon tax.
I don't want links to industry bodies like the miners, who were very vocal about it and about closing projects, whilst it was still all 'full steam ahead' on the ground.
I put it to you not a single mining project was shut down due to the carbon tax. It was a blip on the radar for our biggest polluters.
Investment in renewable energy though has skyrocketed!!
One of my biggest lessons in life was to pay more attention to what people do, rather than what they say.
And yes, the idea of the Carbon Tax is to make electricity more expensive.
Surely that can't be true. People seem convinced the environment will be saved by politicians and they will do it for no added cost.
'Da guv' intro'd it for our own good. Vote for it? Pah. Nonsense. We do it for the good of the land. Nobody needs to vote for such charity. Everyone wants it.
Another Lie,
Can you quote where you are getting your figures from ?
@ > 23 $ a tonne we have one of the most severe carbon tax in the world.
This fact is changing.
well then don't use tax payer money to fund private industry, overtime coal plants have also gotten more and more efficient, that too without TAX PAYER HANDOUTS.
All you Greenies answer this question in numbers and I will never raise any objection to the carbon tax again.
That is such a ridiculous argument. The effect of our actions will obviously be proportional to the size of our country.
oops, double post
The science behind global warming is filled with charlatans as it is. Agenda 21 and the UN (united nations). Look it up.
Nobody asked 10% of our Carbon Tax to go to the UN either. Nobody elected these unofficial elite, even though elections themselves are fraudulent showbusiness exercises to make people think they hold the power, when in reality nobody can hold any real power without their (large) sponsors (and the sponsors are not the Average Joe, even though we pay through the nose as it is).
Nobody voted for the Carbon Tax. It's a global plan with a global agenda to tax you and finely allow yet even more control over our daily lives, all under the excuses that this control is for the sake of the environment. Yes, and just like this tax, the wars we are fighting are for anti-terrorism (!). If you believe that, I have some toxic sludge to sell you.
Even though the 'sniffer dog' has been put in service and has already found the trail of the money and certainly 10% of it points to the UN, people are unwiling to accept they have absolutely no control over what is planned for them by a handful of global elite.
For them, this concept is somehow alien. Greater powers controling our politicians? Well, I never…!
Ready for the downvotes by the ignorant and government shills.
blah blah blah illuminati blah blah lizard men blah blah blah world government
Not quite correct the hottest times are not the peak times for solar panel electricity production. High temps crimp the ability of panels to operate well. I have solar panels and contrary to perception we get no state assistance on feeding excess power to the grid. Origin energy pay us 6c per kilowatt and we pay them 35c in the evening for power we use from the grid. We know of plenty of folk who did get in in time to benefit from state FIT schemes, but alas not for new instals, certainly not in NSW in past 18 months.
the air in the bag protects the chips allegedly.
This. If the air isn't there the chips get crushed when they are thrown around by the supermarket shelf stackers. Then you would be complaining about that. Perhaps put your efforts to something more worthwhile.
Let the down votes roll!
Pringles seem to manage.
With their hard cardboard exterior? Yes, they do. What's your point?
It's Nitrogen. A gas used because it stops the chips from getting stale
You want to have a packet of fragile chips with no air? Who cares? It is still the same weight as advertised on packs (in most cases).
Good advise. Stop buying junk food.
Advice.
Suck the air and return the chips for a refund. :P
It honestly reminds me of shallow hal
Dumb thread. Please delete.
I actually thought this was a joke, but the OP is serious.
Don't you hate it when you buy a bag of air and there's chips inside?
lol!!
Lmao!!
Old news, but it seems some haven't moved on
Companies make food smaller to save money but I reckon its also got to do with people wanting to diet(eat less) all the time and the crap on TV you hear sometimes where there should be a tax of sugar, fat etc, people blaming obesity on unhealthy food.
The smaller the product the less sugar, fat and salt it has.
If they want to achieve that, they should also print pictures of obese people on the food packaging like tobacco companies put images of smokers on their cigs.
If they want to make the product smaller they should also charge less!
If they want to make the product smaller they should also charge less!
Sure, in an ideal world without profit motives, shareholders to appease, CEO pay rises and without the resulting toxic food crimes for the masses to ingest, I agree.
Hidden inflation (reducing the weight or quantity of items in a package) has been proven to be much more likely to go unnoticed by a higher proportion of shoppers than a straight-up higher price on an item.
So this is how the game is played.
Even though I know plenty of people that shop without paying much attention to price too; they are too 'busy' for that.
And of course they are taken advantage of by the supermarkets. Nearly all supermarket catalogues have "regular prices" and savings that are inflated - again - because people aren't paying enough attention.
But it seems even less take note of weight.
You pay $4 for a "large chips" that is 1/3 air even sometimes 2/3.
You're buying based on it's weight, not volume.
But it's deceiving when these companies decide to stealthily shrink product sizes but maintain prices and even packaging dimensions.
maintain prices and even packaging dimensions.
The thing is, it's much cheaper to change the numbering on the packaging, and reduce the total weight, maintain the total volume (you need the same amount of air, so the cushioning to protect against crushing still works) by slightly increasing the amount of air, to the consumer, it will mean same size packaging.
To the manufacturer, it means they don't have to change the packaging material (it's not only about making the package shorter, they will have to pay people to redesign the fancy colours, logos to fit the new slightly smaller packaging).
So here's the options they have:
- Maintain packaging size (free), change a number (just changing 2 letters in the printing template), change the amount of content in each package (setting the amount in the sorter for each chip bag, free), keep current profits due to increases in costs, and face the backlash of the consumers who will bark at reduced quantity at the same price.
- Change packaging size (make it very noticeable, more consumers get angry), + keep current profits, less the costs to re-scale the larger packaging size to the new smaller packaging size, face the backlash of ALOT of consumers, and satisfy people like O.P.'s "Oh no, they're misleading us".
This option is spending money to rescale the packaging, and making it noticeable so more consumers get angry, while small minorities like o.p. will be content about this issue.. but still angry about quantity reduction. While you can argue the packaging redesign costs may be minimal, put yourself in the manufacturer's perspective, why would you take this action, knowingly that more consumers would notice, in turn, hate your company more?
- Make less profit by maintaining old larger quantities, in the face of rising manufacturing costs. not going to happen
wait until those chips of yours gets a change of packaging. you might find more air and less grams in there.
More air for your buck if you're a glass is half full type of person ;)
Mars bars are a huge ripoff in Aus, can get a 5 pack for 2pounds ($2.80) in UK in nearly every supermarket. Noidea why they try to charge us 2bucks for 50grams of choc, might as well spend 1 dollar more on 100 grams of Lindt or 1/2 fortnightly cadbury sale.
Go to reject shop or other similar places and u can often find packs for around that price. If u shop around u can find it cheaper.
I know what you mean by cheap in UK. Magnum ice cream in a convenience store was one pound! What the??
Also saw good Australian wines in Tesco 5-7 pounds. I pay $15-18 per bottle over here! What the??
I suppose pay rates are lower over there.
You can utilize the air in the packets as i did …
I tie dozen of Packets of Chips around my wrist and go for a swim in the river .. The packets keep me afloat
and swimming makes me hungry so i open a couple and eat them to .. So there is a win win situation…
A True Ozbargainer always looks for a way to save a buck ….
Just eat the dozen bags of chips and your fat arse will float like a cork.
Are you kidding … These Bags of Chips contains more air then Chips so i would remain skinny even if i eat 2 dozen bags of chips ….
than
But after you finish the chips, the air is gone and you sink?
buy a bag of balloons and transfer the air from the chips to the balloons.
don't waste that air you paid good money for!
I think Moots the Mod just trolled us.
No chip for you
Stop buying them works, but only if overs join the cause. A few years ago Cascade brewery reduced bottle sizes from 375ml to 355ml with the excuse that it was to 'Euro size' the bottles. Consumers of course saw this move for what it was, and the subsequent drop in sales forced the company to cough 'right size' the bottles again.
It is hard when cosumers are addict to the product. The chips used to be 200g a bag, now all brands are packaging as 175g a bag with the same price. People continue to buy them.
Chips used to be 250g, I clearly remember, and I'm certain that was reduced from 300g. Now its 185g or smaller for a ridiculous $4.40+ unless you get them reduced. Soon I'll need 2 packets minimum before I'm getting full.
you shouldn't really be buying chips as a 'meal'
If you don't like so much air with your chips, then I suggest buying pringles instead. :)
Sadly, Pringles are no longer considered chips.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aokzM…
I'm so glad it took the courts to get that settled
For those interested in how these chips are made, how they are marketed and many more details of potato chip production, check this podcast episode from Econtalk,
Very interesting podcast in general but this episode covers the details about chips very well.
OP you should listen to this , just for the general information value.
I thought air was free
Air is still free, but what's in the chip packets is not just your normal garden variety air, it is usually some inert (Dry)gas specifically chosen to ensure that it does not damage the crispiness of the chips.
Also there is some case mechanically for air in the packets as they form the AIRbag that ensures you get full chips and not chip powder.
Where does it stop, an what can we do about it. The basic one is stop buying them, but what other options?
There are no other options that actually work.
Keep in mind the average < 200 gram pack of chips contains the equivalent of one average potato, and yet it sells for a maxi price. A bag of potatoes is a far better investment. So is packing your own lunch and snacks.
You are partaking in 'luxury' activity by buying snacks. You may live longer and stronger without them, and have far more money left to spend too. No sense complaining; companies only get the message when you stop buying.
The other option is continue buying and watch the listed grams like a hawk.
its flavoured air though guy!
1st world problem much? Solution, how about make your own 300g chip brand and sell it to us for $2 and with no air. Oh wait you can't in this day and age because people are getting paid more and more.
Solution = cut up and cook potato chips yourself and flavour however u like. So much cheaper, healthier and more flavours.
only thing im disapoint about is whittakers hazelnut going from 250grams to 200g. on special you could buy 500g of delicious whittakers hazel nut for 5 bux. now you only get 400g. i am disapointed
OP could spend less time searching for bargains and earning more cash doing something productive to pay for the 'air'.
Not too sure where your heading, contradiction.
No 'contradiction'. Pointless thread, that is good laugh. "Where does it stop, an what can we do about it" this was the best part, would you like some legislation? A riot lol? Over paying for air.
No offense to the OP, but I think a large portion of our population would love some more legislation for issues like this. They strongly believe the government is there to protect their interests (and save them from themselves).
At one time dunny paper had 500 sheets per roll, try that now….
We got ripped off
How much air is in dunny paper?
toilet paper is a racket, even when bought in bulk from cleaning supply stores.
always consider the $/kg figure when buying food.
This thread is almost as stupid as "Oh my god there's brine in my raw chicken, they're ripping us off! What the Supermarkets don't want you to know! - Listen to the local meat shop guy talk." stories by Today Tonight
Remember: If you don't want any water in your goddamn chicken, go buy chicken jerky (if that exists)
The "air" in potato chips is actually nitrogen and is used as a preservative. You can't vacuum seal chips because they will crush and you can't put air, which has oxygen, in the chips because they will go off. Sauce? http://nutrition.about.com/od/ahealthykitchen/f/What-Is-Nitr…
What everyone is failing to realise is the air in the chip packet isn't just ordinary air. The specialty gas used is made from a combination of stem cell research on dodos and tiny amounts of unobtanium. This not only cushions the chips from smashing up, but has been proven by Hogwarts scientists to exponentially increase the ability of one person to consume the chips at a faster rate than usual. This ability is only activated when you place the next chip into your mouth before you have finished consuming the previous one.
Now I know why I always have the urge to finish the whole pack when it is opened. Those bastards!
A 150g packet of chips contains 150g of chips. Amount of gas inside the bag is irrelevant. What's your point?
good one johno
I think his point is that that 150g packet used to be a 175g packet and before that it was a 200g packet and before that a 220-230g packet and before that a 250g packet. Need I say more?
Aldi cereals have less "air" in their packets than the heavily advertised big name ones in the B I G boxes.
They have the best chips on the market too.
Aldi rocks, I cannot for the life of me figure why anyone would purposely spend an extra $100+ a week on buying crappy product from the other two.
You can't do anything about it. That's the way it is. No one forces you to buy Big Macs, packets of chips etc. Also, we pay more than the rest of the world for the same things because we also earn more on average.
You can't do anything about it. That's the way it is.
I'm pretty sure consumers influence the market..
we also earn more on average
What we earn as a nation on average is meaningless. A more valid comparison would be our median wage which is actually lower than the US.
Sure our minimum wage is double that of the US, but we still have a lower median income so prices here are still a rort compared to the rest of the world. Our economy has come a long way but greed has kept prices high and our willingness to continue spending has just fueled the greed even more.
There are just far too many factors such as tax rates, cost of living, and such to simply say "we earn more, therefore we can afford to pay more, stop bitching."
I'm pretty sure consumers influence the market..
In what sense?
Hardly anyone knows WHAT they are consuming, food-wise. They sure don't know the basics like country-of-origin with our laughable labelling laws. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/made-in-australia-food… Or if it's genetically modified crap from Monsanto and others.
They don't know how it was grown or where exactly it was made, nor the country-of-origin of ingredients from products purported to be made here. They are just as confused with the catch-all "local and imported ingredients" crapola too. And the "flavour" ingredient allowing to be listed on ingredients if it falls under a certain percentage. Nice win for the corporations there. Too bad if you want to know what "flavour" is.
The consumer (I prefer the term CUSTOMER) doesn't know who owns which shares in which companies so they can avoid doing biz with them. They don't know where 'home brands' source their food from. They are absolutely powerless over the food supply. They are absolutely hopeless in avoiding compoanies they hate, let alone genetically modified foods. Where is the legislatioin here, let alone enforcement? Or organic products that say they are but aren't, or have been tainted with genetically modified crap (common).
In short, they have no knowledge of what they are eating UNLESS they grow things themselves. So how does the consumer drive the market here, exactly? When a few multinationals basically control the food supply?
The same customer faced with nothing but glowing advertisements for toxic sludge. The same customer addicted to snack foods and overpackaged junk? The same customer suffering diabetes, heart disease and cancers of all types?
How are they influencing the market without the right info? Without control of their own food supply, they are mere slaves.
I think the op was trying to say that we're getting less food - the case of shrinking packaging.
I remember BBQ Shapes had lots of seasoning compared to now. That's my gripe.
Glad someone get's it. We are getting less food buy paying the same, if not more.
Yes everything is going up in price but the title and the sentence about paying more for the air in chip packets was stupid.
When did this inflation thing happen? Have I been living under a rock?
Take out the chips and weigh it, if it doesn't weight the number of grams it says it's suppose to then post a thread.
I prefer my chips not crushed.
This thread has been a very educating read.
When I read the thread in my mind the OP wasn't so much referring to the air but the same gripe that I have with the chip packets. To confuse consumers the packets of chips for sale contain far less chips than they used and yet they are the same size.
So we are paying more for a pack of chips that's the same size as 10 years ago and weighs less. So yes chips need to have the air (nitrogen or whatever it is) in it to stay fresh and protected, but the chip company's have adjusted the ratio of chips:air because when the pack size doesn't change it's not as noticeable.
I may be wrong but that's what I took from it, it's kind of shocking how quickly the thread got derailed in to a carbon tax/government discussion.
a whopper from hungry jacks is a still… well a whopper. I compared it to a filet o fish the other day and you can fit the box of the filet o fish in place of where the burger sits for a whopper.
tooblue on 04/07/2013 - 23:54 Comment score below threshold.