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.
Does anyone else get hungry when they smell biodiesel exhaust? Reminds me of McDonald's.
Damn Yankees.
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
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.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
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.
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...
Do you see the FNORDS? I refuse to post anonymously, as I am fireproof!
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.
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?
NC has a 20.2 cpg subsidy for B20 http://www.globalsubsidies.org/IMG/pdf/biofuels_su bsidies_us.pdf 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.s -selling-solar.html
--
No Joke! Rent solar power and fix your electric rates for 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This pisses me off to no amount. I actually had been planning to convert an old diesel VW to a "grease car", which actually runs off of unmodified vegetable oil, not bio diesel. So which makes me think, using the states logic, if all electric vehicle owners will be fined in the future? What about bicycle riders who use the roads? Maybe we should have a tiered tax based on mileage. High mileage cars pay higher rates...
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.
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
but for some reason the link didn't work. Maybe I forgot to close a tag.
But algae is still your friend.
+++ATH0
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Time to get really nervous if you have to push your car...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
to see that the spirit of independence, innovation and entrepreneurship still runs strong in the heart of this great country.
A modern day witchhunt.
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.
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.
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.
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 have been ordered to pay the full costs outlined above (although probably at the wholesale price of cooking oil), plus fines for non-payment of the various bonds, plus a fine for non-payment of taxes.
Do I agree with these kinds of charges? No friggin' way! You want to talk about encouraging innovation, well innovate THIS, North Carolina - there will be no Hewletts or Packards or Jobs or Wosniks in a place that makes any kind of innovation totally unaffordable. If the best a startup can afford is a garage, what is the point in charging them in taxation more than everything they posses combined? It's a great way to kill the real doers in the world.
The same goes for any other State that inflicts taxes greater than the value of that which is being taxed, and doubly goes for Britain where common law and common sense are supposed to take precedence over civil and criminal law. (That fact has been used many times in appeals, and is probably the only notable achievement British justice has, but it's probably one of the greatest achievements of any legal system.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...cause it smells like french fries? Really, I think it does.... haha
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
I think that US and Asian taxes are much lower than the Northern European ones. Mind you, that weakens the guys case somewhat, since it means a greater proportion of them are used to pay for roads.
Incidentally in the Fuel Tax protests in the UK, I found out that something like 75% of the cost of fuel is tax. In which case a couple of possibilities occur to me.
One is that biofuel should have a low tax to increase usage but the tax should increase to in the long run the government doesn't lose too much cash. E.g while they are in minority the tax should be low, gradually rising as they take over from fossil fuel, but designed to still give and incentive to switch. If you could get both political parties to agree on this, people making fossil fuel and car manufacturers would have an incentitive to help the transition in return for knowing how the government would set fuel taxes.
The other thing is that you could easily use fuel tax to regulate oil prices. So the tax would rise and fall to compensate for oil costs. If you did both of these, you'd be remarkably insulated from evil terrorist petrostates as you took steps to completely cut off their influence.
Actually given that most of EU budget is spent on subsidizing farmers to grow nothing and that is hard to reform, you could keep spending the money but using it to subsidize production of various biofuel crops. So basically with a bit of planning the Middle Easy can go to hell in a handbasket over a couple of decades and it makes no difference.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Mod parent down, completely untrue on the measure/fine part.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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.
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 it suddenly stops making sense.
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/ 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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you want to sit I'll tax your seat
If you take a walk I'll tax your feet...
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
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
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
It's called "making people reimburse society for the damage they do".
do you have to pay fuel tax on whatever you had for breakfast?
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.
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.
I live in a state that does something similar (Arkansas), but you have grossly misrepresented what they actually do (here at least). Sure they have checkpoints at the weigh stations but they also carry around equipment to check trucker's tanks for taxed gas. The point though is they are checking for taxed gas from any state, they don't care where it was bought. Fuel bought for off road purposes is not taxed (say you own a large farm, tractors are very fuel inefficient and there is no reason to pay road taxes for something that will never drive on the road), but it is illegal to then sell this fuel to truckers for on-road use. THIS is what they are checking for. Fuel sold as off road only has an additive added that is easily detectable.
Source: http://www.landlinemag.com/Archives/2006/Jul2006/
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!
The entire problem with what you propose, is that in the USA, 25 mpg is the current fuel economy standard. Good luck finding any car here that gets your 46 mpg average. All of the car manufacturers claim it is too hard or impossible to manufacture 30+ mpg, let alone 40+ mpg vehicles for the USA. Senator Dianne Feinstein has recently submitted a bill that would require 30+ mpg average fuel economy by 2010, and 1 gallon per year after until 2020. She calls shenanigans on all of the car companies that can manufacture cars in Canada, Australia, Europe, Asia and even Africa that get 35 or more mpg, and are making them right now, but claim they can't do it here. She's right.
Also, you aren't even allowed to import any of those aforementioned vehicles into the USA, unless you are immigrating to the USA and already own one. All sorts of taxes, regulations and whatnot to make quite sure of that.
You should try looking up how the Brazilians do it. Sugar cane ethanol. They have trucks, let alone cars, there, that have been recorded at 46-75 mpg. Then read up on why the USA charges an exorbitant import and production tax on cane sugar, and cane sugar ethanol, to the point that you lose money on every drop of that particular flavor of ethanol that you would import or produce domestically, so that a gallon of sugar cane ethanol is more than four times the cost of a gallon of oil-based gasoline. The cost to manufacture, from seed to distilling into ethanol, costs quite a bit less in energy and dollars than it does to even pump a full tank of standard gasoline into the tank of an average SUV (let alone produce it). You'd almost think that the oil companies through their purchased government representatives might have had a say in those import taxes on cane ethanol eh?
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
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."
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.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
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.
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
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.
"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.
I'm used to petrol prices in the uk - about 90p per litre right now, which works out about $6.50 per US gallon.
Most of that is tax.
The American car market is very different to the rest of the world - the scenic (and as large I was meaning the largest within its range as there is more than one model) is a very comfortably sized family car - most family cars here have very good fuel economy.
The cars with poor economy are not the large family cars, its SUVs, some sports cars and luxury cars with over sized engines. SUVs are unnecessary in the UK in almost all areas - especially cities, the other cars are expensive. If you want to pay so much for your car then you can pay for the fuel to run it - and the tax on that fuel.
No one is forcing people to drive such cars - and a pay as you spend system of tax is far fairer than a pay as you earn.
As for me? Well the last car I had was an older, larger car. A volvo S80, still does far better to the gallon than most US cars.
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
For many pollutants, using a grease/oil like vegetable oil is actually LESS polluting than using fuel oil or diesel, and for some pollutants, it's on a similar clean-burning level to natural gas. IIRC, grease/oil will emit a higher amounts of particulates (i.e. soot) but lower amounts of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide (versus fuel oil/diesel).
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?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Take off your aluminum foil hat, and go outside. There's really no one watching you from your neighbors bushes. The State wants their tax money. The laws may not be perfect, but they say that you need to pay money to the state to use fuel in your car.
Are fuel taxes perfect? no. They don't directly tax how much benefit you get from the roads. They also will tax you if you use the fuel in other things (although the couple of gallons of gas I use in my lawn mower every year is hardly worth mentioning). So what? What possible better solution could there be? Do you want to pay someone to read your odometer? Maybe put a tracking device in your car to see how far you go on state roads? Maybe driving habits, like frequent stops and accelerations have a lot to do with the wear and tear on the roads. Maybe you should be taxed more if you use the roads after the snow storm because your tax money goes to the snow plows to clear the path for you. Oh wait, I've got an even better idea! Why don't we just tax the gasoline so that it works out to be pretty fair 99% of the time! Excellent idea Jeff!
This article should be a warning to people to make sure they are within the tax laws when they use bio diesel. But of course, on slashdot, everyone wants to bring up their ideas to change the friggin world! Oh well, that's really why I read it anyways.
How could anyone think of ANYTHING but the Beatles with lyrics to Taxman??
"But this one goes to 11!"
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."
Uh, farmers do have the ability to buy untaxed fuel. The fuel is dyed so that it can be checked if used on public roads. In fact that is probably what the checkpoint from TFA was for.
-Brandon
Quitters never win, Winners never quit, But those who never win and never quit are idiots.
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.
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
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.