NC Man Fined For Using Vegetable Oil As Fuel

mdsolar writes "The News and Observer reports on an Charlotte, NC driver who has been fined $1000 for not paying a fuel tax when he fills his tank with vegetable oil. Perhaps the funniest quote is this one: '"With the high cost of fuel right now, the department does recognize that a lot of people are looking for relief," said Reggie Little, assistant director of the motor fuel taxes division. "We're not here to hurt the small guy, we're just trying to make sure that the playing field is level."' Sure, since the field is so plainly tilted against Arab oil interests."

Regardless

[Antony-Kyre]

Regardless of whether the law is against him or not, the very fact the state is going to fine him is going to be bad press for the state itself.

bad press for the state itself.

[drgonzo59]

bad press for the state itself.

So what? The people will move out of the state because of it? Someone who has a good job, children in school and family members will decide to move because the state fined someone $2k for using unauthorized fuel? What else would happen, the state will be ranked last on 'environment friendly states' list? In other words, the state is not the same as a company, a state's bad image is harder to link to immediate loss of profits.

Re:bad press for the state itself.

[Antony-Kyre]

Depending on the state legislature, it may or may not end up pushing some citizens to contact their state legislators to provide an exemption.

Re:

[Gyga]

I live in NC, most people won't even find out about this. The biggest paper "The Charlotte Observer" doesn't carry this type of news. The TV news won't carry this. No one will know and those who do are apathetic. The ones that aren't apathetic hate anything remotly tree-huggerish. I have been insulted because of my eco-councious actions even when they weren't affecting anyone.

Few people are going to hear or do anything. To bad this happened right when I was starting to think better of my state.

Re:bad press for the state itself.

[Anonymous Cow herd]

The biggest paper "The Charlotte Observer" doesn't carry this type of news.

Oh really? Better have them yank this [charlotte.com] then...

Re:

[ricree]

Fortunately, the options people have are a slight bit more subtle than that. There is a middle ground between apathy and packing up and moving out.

Re:bad press for the state itself.

[ultranova]

Fortunately, the options people have are a slight bit more subtle than that. There is a middle ground between apathy and packing up and moving out.

Yeah, you could write a disapproving letter to the state government. That will show them !

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:bad press for the state itself.

[palewook]

A disapproving letter to a state government in 2007 will only increase the chance you end up on somebody's watch list..

You might be surprised.

[Organic Brain Damage]

Minnesota Public Radio runs a regular (every 3 months or so) chat with former governors. Wendell Anderson (the one on the cover of Time Magazine in the 1970's holding up a big Walleye...or was it a Northern, oh well, you get the idea) and Arne Carlson and maybe they had one other but I can't remember his name.

They both clearly, seriously (and humorously) claimed that writing actual letters (not e-mail) to state legislators or governors had an impact. And if they got 3-5 letters, they assumed that small number of people sufficiently motivated to write and post a letter represented a much larger number of people who felt the same way.

Maybe it's just in Minnesota or in the past, or both, but I doubt it.

Re:You might be surprised.

[crawling_chaos]

But it needs to be a letter. With a stamp and everything and no sign of being a form letter downloaded from a web site. I work in DC and I can tell you that with the use of the web to mobilize mass campaigns, the value of an email to your legislator is rapidly approaching zero. Too much noise, not enough signal, particularly when many of the emails come from enraged activists who aren't even constituents.

Many states fine you for driving with heating oil

[billstewart]

While this is the first time I've heard of a fine for using biodiesel, there are a lot of states that will fine businesses and sometimes individuals for using home heating oil instead of regular diesel. It's the same reason - highway taxes - and they don't whine about "level playing fields", they just say they want the money. There isn't much difference between some grades of diesel and heating oil - diesel may or may not have some additives in it, and some states will put colored dye in them so you can tell them apart and bust gas stations that sell heating oil as diesel.

Back when I lived in New Jersey, I had oil heat, and if I'd forgotten to check the oiltank dipstick in a while and ran out of oil at night, I could get a can of diesel at the gas station to restart my furnace until the oil people could get there. It was really convenient.

What happens if you buy it from a gas station

[grahamsz]

There are a few gas stations near me that sell actual biodiesel.. presumably that's properly taxed.

I imagine he's being hit by the same kind of statute that would stop you using red or farm diesel in your car.

Re:What happens if you buy it from a gas station

[bman08]

If his is like most of the other greasecars out there, it's got a dual fuel system with veggie oil on one side and standard diesel or a biodeisel mix on the other for warming up and purging the engine (cold veggie oil is thick and gelatinous). The result is a vehicle that should have legal fuel in at least one of its tanks. If one is street legal, fully taxed diesel; how does Johnny Law prove that this guy was running on the untaxed grease at the time of the arrest?

Re:What happens if you buy it from a gas station

[nomadic]

If one is street legal, fully taxed diesel; how does Johnny Law prove that this guy was running on the untaxed grease at the time of the arrest?

By the french fry smell.

Re:What happens if you buy it from a gas station

[pla]

If his is like most of the other greasecars out there, it's got a dual fuel system with veggie oil on one side and standard diesel or a biodeisel mix on the other

Biodiesel != running on vegetable oil. You can run B100 from a cold start in an unmodified diesel engine, without the slightest bit of trouble. You can even use it in post-2007 diesels that require ULSD (<15ppm sulphur), as biodiesel has effectively no sulphur.

Now, buidiesel does have a higher gelling point than dinodiesel, but that just means you need to thin it in the winter (kerosene works wonders, though here in the NorthEast you'll probably need to run B20 at best in the winter).



As for the more on-topic issue here of "should he get a fine for evading fuel taxes"... If you brew your own beer, you don't need to pay the alcohol tax on it. Why wouldn't noncommercial low-volume biodiesel production fall into the category?

Re:

[Antony-Kyre]

In all fairness, it would probably be a much wiser decision to do taxes on the vehicle and eliminate fuel taxes altogether. Then we could really make taxation progressive by taxing the percentage of the vehicle's value to bring in the necessary revenue.

In my state, we have fuel taxes and taxes on vehicles. Of course, the taxes on vehicles are more or less flat, so a vehicle worth $50k will pay the same tax as a vehicle worth $7k.

Re:Many states fine you for driving with heating o

[onsblu]

Singapore takes a similar approach, however, it is also easier to get by without a car in city-state. American cities could probably benefit from the congestion tax implemented in London, which applies to cars in the city during business hours; I know that NYC is looking into this. One major problem with taxing either gas or cars is that it is a regressive tax. Besides, it doesn't matter just how fuel efficient or expensive a car is, what matters is the emissions created during its use (and production). A carbon tax addresses these issues, because it is intended to be a revenue neutral tax, in which the money that is collected from corporations selling energy of fuels to consumers is returned when consumers file for taxes. This way, individuals can make their own short-term (driving habits) and long-term (car purchases) based on the premise that they can save by cutting down on their carbon emissions. http://www.carbontax.org/ [carbontax.org] By the way, you can't "really make taxation progressive by taxing the percentage of the vehicle's value to bring in the necessary revenue," because that's the same principal as sales tax which is the primary example of a regressive tax.

Re:Many states fine you for driving with heating o

[GundamFan]

If a state or city institutes a tax on carbon with the expressed purpose of spending the money neutralizing the taxed emissions it won't take long before the governing body is spending those taxes on other budget items or subsidies for large businesses that have no real benefit for the people paying the "carbon tax".

Re:Sales tax isn't regressive

[jtcm]

Sales tax is regressive? How so? If my consumption goes up (i.e., I'm rich), then I pay more tax.

Sales tax is regressive because if you are poor, sales tax is a greater percentage of your income (i.e. a greater burden) than if you are rich. While you may buy more goods total if you are rich, the percentage of sales tax stays the same.

For example, say there are two people buying a car, Richard (who is wealthy) and Paul (who is poor).

Richard makes $300,000 per year
Paul makes $20,000 per year

Richard buys a car for $60,000 and pays 5% sales tax, or $3000. This is 1% of his income.
Paul buys a car for $20,000 and pays 5% sales tax, or $1000. This is 5% of his income.

Even though Paul spends $40,000 LESS on his cars, he's still paying 5 TIMES the percentage of his income. $1000 for Paul is 5 times the burden that $3000 is for Richard. Do you see why sales tax is regressive?

In contrast, federal income tax is progressive because the percentage increases as your income increases.

Re:Sales tax isn't regressive

[Firethorn]

You're forgetting that Richard eats out while Paul eats at home*. That Richard spends $100k on clothes a year while Paul pays $300/year for his clothing. That Richard goes to the dealership for his maintenance while Paul does his own for the most part. And wtf is Paul doing buying a car costing a whole year's income?

Using just the car is a bad example. First - it's not an annual purchase.

We have the issue where 'rich' is more a statement of assets available more than it's a statement of income. Sure, if you make a million bucks a year you're 'rich' - But we still have 'millionaires' declaring bankruptcy. A large income helps, but it's not a guarantee. Just look at comparative debt loads.

Now, by the arguement that Richard is likely NOT spending all of his money while John is, would be an arguement that the sales tax is regressive. Still, if Richard goes hog wild while John is a careful spender, Richard can still end up paying a higher percentage of income as sales tax vs John.

Look at it as an encouragement to save. Which is a good thing.

*Restaurant food is generally subject to sales tax, while food from a market generally isn't.

Re:Many states fine you for driving with heating o

[Thrip]

Wow, thank you for deciding what fairness is. I had no idea they'd gotten around to giving someone authority to decide that "no ifs ands or buts." But it seems they picked the wrong person. If I had the job, I'd declare fairness states that the person who benefits most from the roads would pay the most in (road) taxes. That's not necessarily the person who uses them most. If two guys drive the same distance to work every day, and one gets paid minimum wage for doing backbreaking labor while the other gets a huge salary for sitting behind a desk, seems perfectly fair to me that the latter contributes more to road upkeep -- the roads are worth a lot more to him.

Re:Many states fine you for driving with heating o

[orlanz]

So because I am better or more efficient at deriving value out of a service/good, I should be punished more than someone who is less efficient or worse at deriving value from the same service/good? Ok....

As long as I am not purposely hurting others, at the end of the day, how I derive that value is really irrelavent.

It isn't a matter of benefit, but rather a personal act of deriving. The former implies the state provides/gives unfairly more value to the rich rather than to the poor (in which case I would agree with you). Which is BS, the state doesn't provide jack. It reallocates while taking its own transaction cost cut and then some. Here, all customers are allocated the same service/good. The later (derives) implies personal action and drive to generate productive value for society from the service/good.

If the poor guy wanted to derive more value from the infrastructure, then he should strive and struggle to do so (getting a higher paying job being just one of many options).

Re:Many states fine you for driving with heating o

[kalirion]

If two guys drive the same distance to work every day, and one gets paid minimum wage for doing backbreaking labor while the other gets a huge salary for sitting behind a desk, seems perfectly fair to me that the latter contributes more to road upkeep -- the roads are worth a lot more to him.

I'd say the roads would be worth a lot more to the first guy who'd likely be homeless without them.

Re:Many states fine you for driving with heating o

[porcupine8]

But you could also argue that if the minimum wage worker lost his ability to get to work, he'd be a lot more screwed than the rich guy, who probably has some savings or at least credit to live on for a bit. Heck, the rich guy might be able to just work from home, whereas that wouldn't be possible for most minimum wage jobs. So who really benefits more from the road - the guy who absolutely needs it to get by, or the guy who could get along fine without it?

Re:Many states fine you for driving with heating o

[thebdj]

NO! You are assuming that fairness is that the rich pay more than the poor. That is not true! Fairness would state that the person who uses the roads the most would pay the most in taxes. No if ands or buts about it.

This is what toll roads were created for. The tolls pay for the roads. These are still supplemented by taxes, but it makes sense that if more roads were tolled, fewer taxes would be needed on gasoline.

Personally, I feel that gas taxes are one of the fairest taxes the government imposes, as it's an actual usage tax. If you use the infrastructure more, you pay more in taxes. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Except, it isn't. Less fuel economic cars get raped. It isn't just about everyone driving SUVs, but think of the poor family that cannot afford anything then that clunker from the 1980s. They are not getting the same mileage as the rich guy who decided to either "save" money or be more eco-friendly with his Hybrid. The cost of a hybrid is significantly more in some cases then its all fuel counterpart. So, in this case, the poorer are paying for the roads, while the richer are using less fuel and therefore paying less taxes, even if they are driving more.

Also, things other then cars run on fuel. These people are also paying for the roads. Gas powered lawn mowers burn on the same fuel. I don't think there are many mowers that are running down streets, especially if they are the walk-behind kind. Generators can run on fuel. These also do not move down the road, so why are they taxed to pay for roads in the same way as fuel used to power a vehicle? It might not be "fair", but it would be smart to tax the cars. The reason is that gas prices have gotten to a point they are pinching people's budgets. They are not pinching the budget of the well-off (and neither would a car tax), they are pinching the lower (and in some cases even the middle) class. How long before people have to decide between gas to get to work, or food to feed themselves or their children? This sort of decision is also bad for the economy when you consider that the "extremely rich" make up such a small percentage of the US population. (Note: I am not a fan of any taxation, but I think that to say a "fuel tax" is fair is BS.)

The guy was evading taxes (even if he didn't realize it), and must pay the price. End of story.

No, he was avoiding paying what is essentially a collective monopoly (after all there is an oil cartel). These are the same people who adjusted the price of E-85, so it would cost the same as (or close to) regular unleaded fuel. These are companies who are fronts for oil producing countries. These taxes and fines only strengthen their potential monopoly by closing out a free market (not a huge fan of that ideal either). It constrains the abilities of the local consumer to come up with an alternate fuel setup and discourages them from using anything that is auto-fuel. BTW, if he was running a 100% electric car, is he dodging taxes because he is using the roadways but is not paying gas taxes? How is this ANY different?

Re:

[Zarf]

Does it help that the state version of the IRS is trying to get him out of the fine because even the tax man seems to disagree with taxing biodiesel? From the article:

The state Department of Revenue, which fined Teixeira, has asked legislators to waive the $2,500 bond for small fuel users. The department also told Teixeira, after the Observer asked about his case this week, that it will compromise on his fine.

Apparently the people responsible for carrying out the fine can't get the people responsible for drafting the laws to lift the fine... typical government run-around.

Re:Regardless

[Original Replica]

I hope he pays in pennies. Dumptrucked to the front steps of the courthouse.

Re:Regardless

[the_tsi]

For those who missed further intricacies of the above joke, (former) NASCAR driver Rusty Wallace (who, along with most other NASCAR teams, is/was headquartered just outside of Charlotte, NC) was fined $5000 for an infraction during a race in 1997. He paid the fine in pennies delivered to the NASCAR officials in an armored truck -- during the next weekend's race, no less, in an attempt to turn it into a PR stunt. (It worked.)

Re:Regardless

[Myrrh]

...but only if the dump truck is running on WVO. The irony coup de grace.

Re:So what? It's North Carolina...

[fyngyrz]

Time to get really nervous if you have to push your car...

Re:

[Tablizer]

Time to get really nervous if you have to push your car...

What if it's solar-powered, will they tax the Sun?

Re:So what? It's North Carolina...

[fractoid]

If you want to sit I'll tax your seat
If you take a walk I'll tax your feet...

No, they'll tax your odometer

[maillemaker]

Eventually, we are all going to be driving cars that run on something other than gasoline.

The state will simply move the taxation to a different point.

If your car runs on hydrogen, they will tax hydrogen.

If your car runs on electricity, they will tax the electricity. Perhaps we will all have special power meters for plugging in our cars at night.

If it becomes too difficult to tax the fuel source, they will simply issue an annual tax based on your odometer reading. Perhaps you will be allowed to pay it in installments over the course of the year.

Government greed for your tax dollars aside, the roads and infrastructure /do/ need to be paid for, and today, they are in no small part paid for through gasoline taxes. If that revenue goes away, it's going to have to come from somewhere else.

Re:No, they'll tax your odometer

[Like2Byte]

Eventually, we are all going to be driving cars that run on something other than gasoline.

The answer: YABBA DABBA DOOO!

Re:So what? It's North Carolina...

[OS24Ever]

Actually they're looking at taxing per mile with GPS encoders in your car showing how far you drove.

I believe Oregon has already piloted said program. The problem seems to be as people push for higher per mile return on the fuel it uses their revenues go down. So now they feel they should get a per-mile rate instead of a per-gallon rate.

I'm a bit surprised this was tagged with humor, as it's not really funny and it's really happening to this guy and sets a precedent for other states to come after all of the folks interested in not burning oil products to make their cars move.

I'm sure we'll see some asinine proposals to add taxes to wind power generation/solar generation that is done by individuals to live off-grid or to reduce their consumption because once again with the taxes placed on the electrical usage reducing your usage of it via these methods is stripping the state of it's ability to generate revenue.

Heaven forbid the states actually reduce their output as well. There sure seems to be a lot of waste in government, at least in my experience with seeing the back end of government entities.

Re:Ask a long-haul Trucker about NC taxes!

[Sparr0]

Mod parent down, completely untrue on the measure/fine part.

Re:Ask a long-haul Trucker about NC taxes!

[pla]

Yes it may be an AC, but if you are going to make a claim. Back it up with a link something resembling proof please.

The burden of proof here rests on the poster originally making the assertion, not the respondant calling BS.

You can't prove they don't do something - Even official statements to the contrary wouldn't disprove the practice. OTOH, to support the GP's stance, he need only post a single instance of such fines occurring.

Re:Ask a long-haul Trucker about NC taxes!

[polar red]

for doing nothing.

Yeah, cuz the state doesn't build roads, right ?

Re:

[mcvos]

By the way, everyone was outraged about "Big Oil's OBSCENE profits" last year. Get this: Exxon makes about $0.06 profit per each gallon of gasoline sold. That's after discovery, drilling, transport, refining, and delivery to retail. The State of NC takes 10X that much (about $.57 per gallon) for doing nothing.

It could be that they tax fuel in order to discourage pollution. Nothing wrong with that. Technically. Until they they start fining people for being more environmentally friendly, ofcourse. Then

Re:Ask a long-haul Trucker about NC taxes!

[philipgar]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the taxes are there to help build the roads that people are driving on. As cars get more enviornmentally friendly, the states will need to start finding new ways to tax them for using their infrastructures. Roads aren't exactly cheap to build you know, and maintaining them isn't cheap either.

Phil

Re:Ask a long-haul Trucker about NC taxes!

[mcvos]

Punitive taxation to satisfy personal agendas?

It's called "making people reimburse society for the damage they do".

Re:Ask a long-haul Trucker about NC taxes!

[ukyoCE]

IPAFTTS (I programmed a fuel tax tracking system) and this is how it works. The trucking industry is *heavily* regulated. Truckers are required to keep log books recording much of their travels. In the end, it really doesn't matter too much what state you buy gas in - it's just delaying the inevitable. You track how many miles you drive in each state, and pay fuel taxes to each state based on miles. So you can fill up 2 miles over the border in Virginia, but if you drove 1,000 miles in North Carolina this quarter, you're still required to pay North Carolina taxes on those 1,000 miles as if you bought gas there.

The penalties for not filing your fuel taxes on time every quarter as pretty hefty too.

Yep, it's a royal pain in the ass.

Re:

[Dragonslicer]

How far will 200 gallons of fuel take you in the average truck in the first place?

Unless you're only getting about 2 miles per gallon, far enough to get you through North Carolina.

Biodiesel

[narced]

Does anyone else get hungry when they smell biodiesel exhaust? Reminds me of McDonald's.

Re:Biodiesel

[dwater]

Yeah, makes me want to throw up a few hours later. Reminds me of McDonald's too.

Thank God for South Carolina

[bdjacobson]

Damn Yankees.

Hell hath NO fury

[WCMI92]

Like a woman scorned?

HARDLY.

That pales in comparison with the fury of a government that isn't getting it's "cut".

We truly lost our freedoms when it became accepted that the government has an inalienable right to a "cut" of ALL transactions!

No mistake about it.

[Rocketship Underpant]

You're absolutely right. I wish I had mod points, and I wish my friends list weren't limited to 200 names -- you deserve a spot.

Americans have become so used to their loss of freedoms in day-to-day life, they forget how absolutely invasive and totalitarian their government has become. Want to be innovative with your fuel or save a little money? Big Brother didn't get his cut, so here's a fine for $2000, and if you do it again, we'll toss you in jail as a threat to "society". It's just like the mafia telling the new business owner on the block that he needs to pay a hefty protection fee like his neighbours do, and it would be a shame if someone burnt down his shop otherwise.

The sad thing is, I fully expect to see many misguided Slashdotters stand up for the state here and defend this ridiculous fine.

Re:No mistake about it.

[jgc7]

The parent comment is nothing more than a troll.

From the article, The state Department of Revenue, which fined Teixeira, has asked legislators to waive the $2,500 bond for small fuel users. The department also told Teixeira, after the Observer asked about his case this week, that it will compromise on his fine.

So Big Brother has asked Big Brother to fix a stupid law. Big Brother is also willing to compromise on Big Brother's cut. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Re:No mistake about it.

[Myopic]

The state is willing to compromise on the amount or repayment scheme on an unconscionable fine -- and you think that makes them reasonable? Dude I think you should run for legislature, or are you already too busy being a bureaucrat?

To me, reasonable would be if they never had the stupid rule to impose the stupid fine in the first place; or never levied the fine, despite the stupid rule, because they know how stupid it is; or if their "compromise" was an apology and release from the citation.

Re:Hell hath NO fury

[WCMI92]

"Normally, I'm against libertarian notions like this, but this is the danger of governments. I mean, the concept is square and solid for businesses dealing in fuels, but what about average joes trying to get by with biodiesel or other forms of power?"

Presumably taxes were paid on the stuff that made the bio fuel oil in every phase of transaction. The farmer paid taxes, the producer paid taxes, the McDonalds paid taxes, those who bought the fries fried in the oil paid taxes, etc.

How many times should the government be able to tax one product?

Re:Hell hath NO fury

[I_Love_Pocky!]

I think you are missing the point here. All of the taxes you mentioned are different kinds of taxes for different purposes. Fuel taxes in many states are used for transportation costs like road maintenance and public transportation (which in theory reduces traffic). It's like a use tax for the road system. Why should those who choose to pursue alternative fuel sources automatically get an out on paying for the roads they are going to be driving on with that alternative fuel? I could understand a state making the choice to promote alternative fuels by giving them tax breaks, but it seems like a decision that should be made rather than assumed. At the end of the day, there are costs that those taxes are paying, and we should all pay our fair share of it. If you feel like taxes are too high, pressure your legislators to cut taxes, and programs.

Re:

[putaro]

The fuel tax combines both transportation cost and an incentive for fuel economy and that's where it goes a little off.

A fair tax for road usage would require you to write in your mileage every year and pay a tax. It's easier to hide it in the price of the fuel and it also gives an incentive for fuel efficiency as long as everyone is using the common fuel

However, we're now seeing an expansion of alternate fuels and this is starting to make the fuel tax look silly. This man was fulfilling one of the goals

Re:Hell hath NO fury

[Chandon Seldon]

Trying to tax a product based on how it's used is absurd.

The correct thing to do here is this: Define the tax to be on gasoline / diesel sales at a gas station. If a significant portion of the population (even a couple percent) decides to get diesel automobiles and buy heating oil to fuel them, then either apply the tax to sales of heating oil too or remove the tax on diesel fuel and create a yearly tax on owning a diesel vehicle. There's no reason to worry about vegetable oil at all - there isn't a large enough supply to matter.

My point is this: Distributors should be responsible for taxes on products they sell. If a few people get similar products through different channels, that's ok - they may be fringe, or the market may be changing. Once the market has changed, the taxes should be changed to catch up. But fining people for making a non-standard market choice is absurd - in fact, it should be criminal.

Re:

[Rei]

Infinitely.

The government needs money to provide everything that it provides -- a common defense, support for those who can't afford it, transportation infrastructure, education, and so forth. We could debate all day what it *should* provide, but that's not the issue here. Even the most hardcore libertarians want the government to at least provide for a common defense.

Well, how does the government pay for that? It doesn't need a one-time influx of cash; it needs a regular influx of cash. Obviously.

The m

Re:Hell hath NO fury

[Logic and Reason]

Even the most hardcore libertarians want the government to at least provide for a common defense.

I don't know where you got this idea, but "the most hardcore libertarians" are anarchocapitalists, and do not want any government at all.

Re:Hell hath NO fury

[walt-sjc]

I don't mind double, triple or quadruple taxation.

Really? I do. I makes everything a lot more expensive than it should be. I figure that 80% of what I make goes to support the government directly or indirectly exactly because of this multiple taxation. It makes it that much harder to save money for retirement or sending my kids to college.

Re:

[TheLink]

Actually, the main issue shouldn't be whether there are many taxes or high taxes.

The main issue is whether the money is well spent - used responsibly, not wasted, AND in line with what the citizens want. In some countries citizens don't mind high taxes because they think they get good value for their money. But in other countries citizens prefer low taxes (this is a lot easier in city states, because you don't have the costs of serving a large number of rural and poorer areas).

Sometimes people say things sh

Fair enough

[G-funk]

It's fair enough really. The tax is for road usage, not petrol usage. The bowser is just the fairest place to take it. That's why farmers get to use a "special" coloured diesel that has less tax on it.

Re:Fair enough

[timmarhy]

no, road use is what vehicle rego is for. This is just petty to the fucking extreme. i wonder how in the world he got done for it in the first place, surely not enough people are doing this for the government to have crack down on it to protect their precious taxes.

this is all besides the fact that why is it anyones business what i use to run my car? am i dodging fuel taxes by using an electic car?

Re:Fair enough

[timmarhy]

"illegal for the government to charge more for a service (like vehicle registration) than it actually costs to provide the service"

You sir, amuse me.

Re:Fair enough

[dabraun]

Of course there is no system in place for paying taxes on your alternative-source fuel, nor, to my knowledge, any actual law in place saying that you can't use an alternative fuel (other than farm gas) on a public road.

If the system of taxing based on gas is broken, fix it - though at this stage of the game the number of people driving with something other than normal fuel is so low it's hardly worth worrying about.

It would cost more to pass and enforce the law, make a system for recieving funds from the fuel etc than they would make on it. If the number became high enough there would be a distribution system in place (vegetable oil at the pump) which could effectively tax it.

Nevermind that growing crops to create fuel oil has so many environmental problems that it shouldn't even be considered at this point.

I meant to link you to this

[StarKruzr]

but for some reason the link didn't work. Maybe I forgot to close a tag.

But algae is still your friend [unh.edu].

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, I believe here there is such a law, here anyway. A friend who makes her own biodiesel told me that you're SUPPOSED to register as a fuel producer and collect the fuel tax from yourself.

You're right though, at the moment home-produced alternative fuels (there are lots of propane vehicles around here, but propane for automobile use is taxed) are such a small segment that it's not really worth enforcing. As that use grows though, alternative fuel drivers are going to have to start paying their shar

Fair's Fair

[mdsolar]

NC has a 20.2 cpg subsidy for B20 http://www.globalsubsidies.org/IMG/pdf/biofuels_su bsidies_us.pdf [globalsubsidies.org] which he is not getting since he is buying his oil at the store. Since he is basically using B100, the state should be paying him 5*20.2-29.9(use tax)=71.1 cpg. So, fining him for this seems about as funny as it gets.
--
No Joke! Rent solar power and fix your electric rates for 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Not fair.

[twitter]

The tax is for road usage, not petrol usage.

This is true but charging the biodiesel user hardly "levels the playing field" and the punishment is silly. Big oil people have far greater resources for figuring taxes owed and paying them. If the state wanted to be fair, they could have figured the taxes for him and demanded payment. Slapping him with a fine in excess of what's owed is only something that should be done if he used the kind of scam accounting big oil companies use.

Something stinks and it's not biodiesel.

The "bowser?"

[StarKruzr]

No, it's not the fairest place. How about tolls?

Reduce the price of fuel and charge more in road tolls. Now you don't have to worry about discouraging people from using biofuels.

Re:Fair enough

[mark-t]

If it was for road usage, why aren't cyclists also charged?

Re:Fair enough

[Jarjarthejedi]

Uhh, because a bicycle doesn't weigh anywhere near enough to cause damage to a road? Seriously, that's a bit of a duh. That's like asking, well I can't think of a car related metaphor for obvious reasons. But really, the road tax is for repair/upgrade of roads. Repair is needed when cars damage the roads, something bicycles can't do. Upgrades are needed when more cars drive on a road than the road can accommodate, bicycles take up less space so upgrades wouldn't be needed for them.

My Opinion, this guy should still have to pay the road maintenance tax, but he shouldn't be considered a criminal...

Re:

[Xtravar]

And why don't I get a refund for the gas used mowing my lawn?!

they were hunting for biofuel users to fine

[Anonymous Coward]

revenue investigators were checking fuel tanks of diesel RVs for illegal fuel. The investigators spotted Teixeira's passing bumper sticker: "Powered by 100% vegetable oil."

They were specifically hunting for individual bio-fuel users to make a point.

Hopefully they will lose the point in legislature and put the investigators on the unemployment line. Just another version of cops with bad attitudes and power trips.

Re:they were hunting for biofuel users to fine

[gone6713]

They weren't hunting for bio-fuel users. The illegal fuel they were looking for was diesel purchased for farm use. When you buy diesel for farm use you don't pay the road taxes on it, which can be around 30 cents a gallon, but you aren't supposed to use it on the road. It is a common thing around where i'm from (Nebraska farm country). They dye the farm diesel so that troopers can tell what type it is.

The problem is...

[m0ng0l]

That most states use some or all of the fuel taxes to help defray the cost of road improvements / maintenance (no one said they do a *good* job of this) Someone who is "home-brewing" fuel, whether it be bio-diesel, ethanol, or used cooking oil, ends up essentially using the roads for "free" as they don't pay the fuel tax.

I few options might be to allow home-fuelers to purchase a license (cheap), and be expected to pay more on the yearly state taxes. The license would allow the state to put the tax payment on the honor system (sort of like Michigans' expectation that people will report how much stuff they bought over the internet, and pay the appropriate state taxes on it), with some sort of check. Perhaps a random checking of X percent of the licensees state tax return, and go after the people who didn't pony up. Even go so far as to keep it (relatively) friendly, offer them the chance to pay the extra, no penalty, no crime, if they pay, subject dropped, if not, get mean. By keeping it friendly, there would be the hope of more people switching, get enough people using home-fueling, and then you can start selling licenses for fuel stations, providing alternative fuel(s), and charging the state fuel tax per-gallon, and phase out the licenses at that time.

While I don't know about the laws here in Michigan regarding this sort of thing, I know they've been floating the idea of doing away with the gas tax, and instead raising the sales tax. The thinking being that this would get visitors from out-state paying a bit more, so even if they don't fill up, they're still paying (some) towards the roads they drive on...

Re:

[mrjb]

Sorry but in this case the state sounds like the RIAA to me. They didn't see the revolution coming and now they're whining for a share.

Someone who is "home-brewing" fuel, whether it be bio-diesel, ethanol, or used cooking oil, ends up essentially using the roads for "free" as they don't pay the fuel tax. So do pedestrians who walk to the supermarket. Just because they don't drive cars, doesn't mean that they don't use the roads to benefit the transport system. As long as the fuel tax is used what it is i

Oil companies own America

[uncoveror]

I thought harassing alternative fuel pioneers was ridiculous when it happened in the UK, [uncoveror.com] and railed against it. Now it is happening in the US too. Oil companies own us like dealers own their junkies. It sucks.

He got off lightly, too.

[jd]

• Minimum bond for storing alternative fuels for a car: $2,000
• Minimum bond for blending any type of fuels for a car: $2,000
• Minimum bond as a bulk-end user of alternative fuels: $2,000
• Tax per gallon: 29.9 cents + 7% of average wholesale price + 0.25 cents for inspection

Assuming that there's no wholesale price for used frying oil, and that you use 10 gallons in a week, your bond is $6,000 and your tax bill is $7,839, giving you a total cost of $13,839

All things considered, he got off lightly. He could

Changes to the law in the UK

[Gordonjcp]

In July the law is changing over here, so that people producing biodiesel for their own use (and less than some ridiculously huge amount, like 2500 litres) will be exempt from paying fuel duty on it.

Breaking stupid laws works, people. The sooner the US population wakes up to this idea, the better.

looking for that hole...

[dAzED1]

ok, media today, we all know, is sensational. They leave out details that would make everything less bad-looking, and stretch details that make things look worse.

Looking at this, I have to assume such is occuring. Perhaps he's supposed to...no, that doesn't make sense. Maybe he...no, not that either.

Ok, I give. What am I missing? How in the heck does this actually make sense? I'm generally the one laughing at the conspiracy nuts, and explaining what the news left off that shows that BigBrother isn't actually hell-bent on making your life, specifically, a living hell. You're not so important that it's worth it to go out of the way to monitor every move you make, every call, every email, every purchase, to the nth degree.

All that withstanding, what the heck? Where's the hole I'm missing?

Re:

[Zarf]

All that withstanding, what the heck? Where's the hole I'm missing?

Actually, it's quite simple. The state wants tax dollars to pay for roads. All cars drive on roads... even bio-diesel cars... from the article:

With its 29.9-cent a gallon gas tax, the state collects $1.2 billion each year to pay for road construction.

...and there certainly is a lot of road construction in this state in response to the mushrooming population. Land prices are still rising fast enough to double every five years due to incessant demand for more housing.

The unfortunate truth is that governments tend to react slowly and tend to

Correction: NC Man Fined For Using NC Roads

[Fred Ferrigno]

C'mon, you could at least mention that the gas tax is really an indirect tax on road use. You might even point out that the fine is intended to offset his use of the NC road system and has absolutely nothing to do with how he fuels his car.

Do we want to subsidize motorists who use alternate fuels by exempting them from the taxes on road use? Maybe, maybe not. But they're not exempt yet, so this guy has to pay his fair share. Not that surprisingly, really.

And how do they prove...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

... that he ever filled up his RV in North Carolina?

I thought criminal matters in the US put the onus on the government to prove that a crime took place, in this case that he had ever purchased biodiseal in North Carolina.

humor?

[updog]

wtf is this tagged "humor"?

It's obviously not a joke, and it's certainly not funny that people who are actually trying to make a difference are getting donkey punched by the local authorities.

Re:

[I don't want to spen]

I was going to ask if you knew what donkey punch [wikipedia.org] meant - until I saw your Nick ...

Solar power and an electric car

[narced]

I wonder what the gov'ment will do when people with electric cars who charge off of solar start showing up. Do they tax us for being green just because we are using the roads? Do we get punished like this guy? It seems the whole road tax system is going to have to be revamped in the coming years.

Re:

[mdsolar]

The cracks that allow the water in come from wear. This goes as the fourth power of the axle weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance [wikipedia.org]. If you don't weaken the road surface, you don't get potholes as frequently.
--
Convert to solar power for what you pay now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

If the government was serious...

[speaker of the truth]

If the government was serious about finding minimizing our dependency on foreign oil then this man would be exempt as he does not use foreign oil. Let's get all non-foreign oil sources (including domestic sources, if at all feasible, I'm not sure if it is) exempt from these taxes, and raise the taxes elsewhere. That way more and more people will avoid foreign oil. Then once we've achieved 0 use of foreign oil, we can start slowly putting those taxes back on, while raising the foreign oil taxes even further and lower the taxes elsewhere (wherever it was increased to make up for the loss of tax from the exemption in the first place) so it will continue to remain profitable to use domestic sources. Then, if its still an issue which I think it will be, we can repeat the entire process with more environmentally friendly fuel methods.

Or we can keep invading countries and enrichen US companies that import foreign oil.

Arab Oil interests?

[mr100percent]

"Arab Oil interests?"

That's a cheap shot at Arabs. And untrue. Did you know [doe.gov] that the top 2 sources of crude oil are Canada and Mexico? Followed by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? 3 of the top 4 sources of oil are non-Arab.

Re:

[dcollins]

You left out a key phrase, "... to the United States".

Re:Arab Oil interests?

[whitehatlurker]

No, no. That's not true. [mystic Jedi hand gesture] All your oil comes from the Middle East. [repeat gesture] There is no country called Canada.

These are not the oil-rich targets you're looking for.

Re:

[cheezedawg]

Excellent point, except you left off the biggest supplier of oil to the US- the United States! We produce about 40% of our oil needs domestically. The next biggest supplier, as you point out, is Canada, which accounts for a little less than 10% of our oil needs (or around 17% of our oil imports).

So counting our domestic oil production, over 70% our oil comes from "non-Arab" sources.

Re:

[SEE]

To be fair, Arab oil actually is the #1 source, beating out Mexico and Canada individually (but not collectively). Saudi Arabia isn't the only Arab country we get oil from, after all.

Well, yes, if you aggregate all Arabic-speaking countries as a single source, but don't aggregate, say, all the Spanish-speaking countries as a single source, you can argue that the #1 source is "Arab oil". If however, you aggregate all the Spanish-speaking countries, it becomes clear the #1 source is "Hispanic oil". I rather

Brings a tear to my eye...

[bluprint]

to see that the spirit of independence, innovation and entrepreneurship still runs strong in the heart of this great country.

Why this happened...

[amper]

For those of you wondering why this is even news, refer to the following quote from TFA:

Teixeira's story began near Lowe's Motor Speedway on May 14. As recreational vehicles streamed in for race week, revenue investigators were checking fuel tanks of diesel RVs for illegal fuel.

Apparently, the inspectors were looking for people with diesel-engined RV's that may have had dyed diesel fuel (which is not taxed, or taxed at a lower rate than automotive diesel, and is generally used in farm vehicles) in their tanks. They may have also been checking for the use of Low Sulfur Diesel, which is illegal for use in MY2007 diesel engines (which require Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel).

The race mentioned appears to have been a NASCAR event, which makes you wonder why state inspectors might think that farm diesel might end up in road vehicles there... ;)

I myself didn't know that there *was* such a thing as "illegal diesel fuel" until I read this article.

OTOH, this is a ridiculous case that ought to be throw out of court. Just another case of overzealous law enforcement officials tossing their weight around.

pathetic, but telling

[ChipMonk]

I'm reminded of this quip from my fortunes file:

"We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem--how to run a sunbeam through a meter."

Common practice in Germany

[hoover]

While not exactly legal over here in Germany either, many people run their Diesel cars on a mix of commercial grade diesel and vegetable oil, which comes even often used from fast food outlets if you can believe it.

It's quite easy to spot (or smell, rather) these cars when following them as you develop a sudden hunger for french fries out of the blue! ;-)

If you bicycle to work...

[volpe]

do you have to pay fuel tax on whatever you had for breakfast?

Re:Eh?

[DaveWick79]

It goes toward Arab oil interests because it penalizes the consumer for using anything but gasoline, therefore shuttling more dollars toward the big oil machine. Yes, you could say that there is no more tax than you would pay for gasoline, but if you're not getting a price break to use alternative fuels, it's not going to happen.

Re:

[Dunbal]

People we are getting robbed blind here and punished anytime we try to make a decision for ourselves.

Welcome to the New World Order. Oh, and expect a visit from the police soon, dissenter. Don't worry, we'll make up the charges when we get there.

Re:

[awfar]

...cause it smells like french fries? Really, I think it does.... haha