The bottle bill sponsored by Sen. Teresa Paiva Weed is nothing more than another form of consumer taxation.

The sales tax is already excessively high for Rhode Island consumers, without adding to the cost. To recover the additional money spent on beverages would require traveling to a redemption center at the cost of time and gas, a much higher cost than it would be worth. Most citizens would not do it.

As a result, “unclaimed” deposits (taxes) would build to be collected by Resource Recovery with 75 percent going directly to the state and 25 percent to Resource Recovery, an agency of the state. (If the latter has the resulting materials to market, why would it need 25 percent of the unclaimed deposits?)

The bottle bill would hurt Rhode Island business by causing consumers to cross the line and buy their beverages in another state. The 5 percent sales tax in Massachusetts, for example, would be more attractive to consumers, even with the 5 cent bottle/can charge. So the bottle bill in Rhode Island would benefit other states.

A significant outlay of state budget dollars would be required to set up the redemption centers, an expense that cannot be justified in this deficit period. There would be more bookkeeping and overhead expenses for the retailers, and Resource Recovery, along with the state, would be required to monitor, collect and distribute the nickel tax.

The senator alleges that 40 percent to 50 percent of state litter is composed of beverage bottles, a questionable assertion. Bottles and cans are just two of the many items that make up the litter across our state. Fast-food and smoking debris are large contributors to the state’s litter. To control the litter problem the attitudes and habits of citizens and drivers need to be changed.

The legislature should be finding ways to reduce and eliminate spending, not dreaming up new, or reviving old, consumer-taxation approaches to maintain its deficit-spending habits.

W.D. WHITMAN

Cranston