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."
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.
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!
Corporatism != Free Market
Since when has any fuel tax collected gone towards Arab oil interests?
Sesostris III
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
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.
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?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I thought harassing alternative fuel pioneers was ridiculous when it happened in the UK, and railed against it. Now it is happening in the US too. Oil companies own us like dealers own their junkies. It sucks.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
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.
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.
+++ATH0
... 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.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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.
Well you have to realize you need at least three supervisors on site for each guy actually working. For those supervisors you need to have a commissioner to decide how quickly to raise everyones pay so they can complain they'll have to fire people if they don't get a tax increase. You also need to have secretaries to explain why the commisioner is too busy to take your call and to transfer you to someone else. And of course you need to have some Pr person to get transferred to to let you know that the commissioner is doing all they can to tighten the budget and fight against the other commisioners that are the real problem. Throw in lawyers, janitors, payroll, and expense accounts and you'll see how just filling a pothole can easily cost more then you make in a year.
Vote Republocrat!
YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!
IOU one (1) signature
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.
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.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
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.
Who the hell tagged this article "humor"? "fuckingsad" would be more appropriate. We should be encouraging people who dabble in alternate fuel sources, not punishing them.
to see that the spirit of independence, innovation and entrepreneurship still runs strong in the heart of this great country.
A modern day witchhunt.
If it was for road usage, why aren't cyclists also charged?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I never understood why people need to show off how they tweaked their cars. The "ricers" put fart-cans on their exhaust which doesn't increase HP, but rather annoys the hell out of everyone. And it's also a homing beacon saying "hey cops, come ticket me for my illegal mods." The same goes for this guy. His car runs on bio-diesel. Great for him (really). However, waving it in front of the cops or anyone else is just asking for at least an inspection by the cops. That's why I do stealth mods to my car. The exhaust sounds the same, there are no flashy stickers or huge spoilers hanging off my trunk. But underneath the hood, I've upped the HP and put on a better exhaust. I don't put on any bumper stickers or pro/college teams logos on my car because the opposing fans might scratch it.
Sadly, in this day and age, the concept of "freedom of speech" is nothing more than "hey officer, I'm suspicious - come investigate me." So I just STFU & GBTW.
State inspection? What is this "state inspection" that you speak of?
Sig unrelated.
You left out a key phrase, "... to the United States".
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Time to get really nervous if you have to push your car...
What if it's solar-powered, will they tax the Sun?
Table-ized A.I.
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."
But if you push your car, you are not paying fuel tax either, so you will be fined. Without knowing the exact letter of the law, it sounds rather ridiculous. Why pay tax on not taxable fuel? What about electric cars? They don't pay tax. How about one of these experimental hydrogen powered cars? It seems pretty ludicrous to me.
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...
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
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 intended for, this is fair. However, as it turns out, taxing cars is an easy way to finance all kinds of unrelated stuff. As a result, cars, fuel and roads are overtaxed. Why does fuel need to be taxed more than food? Because in its traditional form, it is a non-renewable, fossil resource.
Now the fact is that this mister bought foud and *used* it as fuel. Bad analogy: If he would've fed it to his horses for transport purposes it would have been all right, but if he puts it in his car it's a problem. In both cases the oil is oxidized to release its energy for transport purposes. Does it seem fair to you that one of these is taxed and the other is not?
If this guy would plant his own crop and harvest the oil and be completely self-sufficient, would it be fair that he'd be taxed? Even if the guy that powers his battery-operated vehicle with solar power isn't? Even though in both cases the energy is -in reality- solar based? I think we'll have to face the fact that legislation has some catching up to do to become fair again. The problem here is that 'fair' usually means 'more money for the state'. This guy is saving the planet and being punished for it.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
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!
Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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 share.
The fuel tax actually works quite well. Bigger, heavier vehicles pay more (they're harder on the highway) and if you drive more, you pay more. It works out quite neatly and there's no reason it shouldn't continue to do so by taxing ENERGY, whether gasoline, electricity or biofuel for use in automobiles.
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.
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.
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. 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.
The only thing that makes gas taxes unfair is that they unfairly penalize people who have cars with poor gas mileage. The tax would more accurately go against the weight of the car and the number of miles driven, as those two factors have more to do with how much wear and tear you cause on the states infrastructure.
As far as taxes on vehicles go, it makes sense to tax them the same, at least if the tax is earmarked to pay for the states roads. If anything, it's more likely that a car that costs $50k causes less damage to the roads than the old clunker that cost $500. I kind of wish gas taxes were higher. I imagine for something like gas with supply constrained at a relatively constant amount at any given time, the impact of the tax would hit the oil companies more than it would hit the average consumers. It would slightly reduce the available supply, but that's also not necessarily bad. This story is just garbage. The guy was evading taxes (even if he didn't realize it), and must pay the price. End of story.
Phil
It's called "making people reimburse society for the damage they do".
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?
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.
Eventually, we are all going to be driving cars that run on something other than gasoline.
/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.
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
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
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.
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.
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
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".
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
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?
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
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).
besides, most of the people who will be paying the tax will be the ones least able to afford it; at least here in the northeast US. I have friends whose parents are moving from their house of 25 years, because of the property taxes. Another energy tax(carbon tax), above the already high energy prices, and yes I know federal,state, and local taxes are a huge part of that, would exacerbate an already significant problem.
Now I would support an incentive that encouraged these alternative, cleaner, lower carbon, whatever, fuels; say lowering the energy taxes that already exist on them to encourage the usage. That would be a fine incentive that would have the same effect.
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - 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."
And you don't think this is offset by the number of well-off people driving SUV's while the less well-off drive old econoboxes? I do. I'll wager it's more than offset, and if you were honest, you'd admit I'm right.
"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"
This is a pittance, don't try to pretend otherwise. It's nothing compared to what cars use, and I can't see the validity of considering it when talking about gas taxes.
So, apart from the bad example and the insignificant exception, do you have a real argument? As it stands, it sounds very much like you picking a position and trying very hard to find reasons to support it.
It is perilous to suggest, as you have, that fuel taxes be used for fiscal policy. As a tax on road infrastructure usage, fuel taxes are justified, agreeable, and successful in matching consumption of a public good with an equal penalty. But as a fee for unfashionable behavior, they cause widespread market distortion -- e.g. a large family's optimal decision may be to buy an older, larger car... a decision which apparently offends your prejudices.
And this isn't about greenhouse gas emissions: a per-gallon tax already addresses that (though perhaps it is not high enough). This is about you sacrificing others' efficiency in order to achieve an end that you and a few find aesthetically pleasing.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
How could anyone think of ANYTHING but the Beatles with lyrics to Taxman??
"But this one goes to 11!"
GPS devices to track mileage?!? Why not just use the odometer? Well, besides the obvious reason that while an odometer tracks mileage, a GPS unit can be used to track position. That power would never be abused, I'm certain.
One thing to keep in mind: The cars are computers. We are hackers.
So it won't be so easy, but as long as the signals from the sensors are not fully encrypted and authenticated, they may be simulated with a $2 microcontroller - the issue here is to make the engine control unit think that the mile tracker is connected, and convince the mile tracker that the car is not moving. With full encryption, it may be easier to entirely replace the engine control electronics - or use a less hostile model of a car.
1) If it is technology, it can be hacked.
2) Everything is a form of technology.