Slashdot Mirror
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."
That's a cheap shot at Arabs. And untrue. Did you know 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.
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.
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.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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 most equitable way to do this would be to have everything of value slowly trickle a small amount of its value to the government. Obviously, that's not going to happen. So, instead, we have this compromise system based on taxation at the time of transactions. It approximates, roughly, a constant income stream to the government which, in turn provides for a common defense and so forth.
This notion of "double" or "triple" taxation somehow being unfair belies a complete misunderstanding of the process. John has a personal business that makes widgets. Sam buys a widget from him. Sam pays taxes -- single taxation. Now John pays taxes on his business -- there's double taxation! Now John gets paid by his business, but the government gets a cut. Triple taxation! Now Sam buys something with his income. Quadruple taxation! And on and on it goes. Why? Because, obviously, a one-time influx of cash into the government just won't cut it.
Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
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.
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.
70% of statistics are made up.
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.)
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
This is nothing new. Fuel for use in vehincles on farms does not have road tax applied to it. If you drive on public roads using that fuel you will be fined if caught. This is just special pleadiing that since it's vegetable based fuel he shouldn't have to pay road tax. Wrong. He gets to pay road tax just like the rest of us, or don't use that fuel on public roads.
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).
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.
@ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
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.
I don't read AC A human right