A price to pay for alternative fuels by BRUCE HENDERSON - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

NC Benz · #46 06-12-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

That's for sure, as long as it's just the lunatic fringe not paying fuel taxes they won't bother with you (if you don't go public). If a significant number of people start evading taxes by burning this stuff, the feds and the states will start paying attention (not in a good way). This is no different than using un-taxed, off-road diesel, they just don't bother to enforce it yet.

Funny I have never been called lunatic fringe ever in my life until now.

This has NOTHING to do with trying to evade taxes and has EVERYTHING to do with trying to get ourselves off of foreign oil. I think you are missing the point.

Until the governing parties have a good way to pay these taxes or another equitable method to pay for the roads, what are people supposed to do? We could just continue down the marry road of using foreign oil... or we can try to do something else. This is something else.

NC Benz · #47 06-12-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spark3542

If you rewind a few years (or decades), I'm speculating that the spirit of levying a tax on fossil fuel was to incent people into finding alternatives...then someone said "hey, let's use the revenues to fix the roads" Great idea at the time. But the natural evolution subsequent to that is to say that everyone needs to pay this tax to be an upstanding american. Anyone not using fossil fuels is unamerican...exactly the opposite of the intention of the tax.

Similar to speeding fines. Let's fine people for exceeding the speed limit to incent them to slow down...and by the way, let's use the speeding fine revenue to support local and state law enforcement, etc. Great idea...but that evolved into states refusing to raise ridiculously-low speed limits because of the revenue that would be lost.

We should share equally in paying for road use, but we need a new equitable solution to collecting the burden.

To call this guy a criminal for "evading" his road tax is absurd. To hold to that arguement, you must also support my notion that the government owes me a rebate on all the road-taxed gasoline in my mower and weed whacker, which is equally absurd.

And someone explain to me how electric cars are paying "their" taxes. To continue... then all hybrid cars are running "illegal" as well.

#48 06-12-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC Benz

And someone explain to me how electric cars are paying "their" taxes. To continue... then all hybrid cars are running "illegal" as well.

That is a good question regarding "plug in" electric cars (are there any commercially available today?), but hybrids obtain 100% of there energy from their gas engine, including the energy to charge the batteries.

#49 06-12-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC Benz

Funny I have never been called lunatic fringe ever in my life until now.

This has NOTHING to do with trying to evade taxes and has EVERYTHING to do with trying to get ourselves off of foreign oil. I think you are missing the point.

Until the governing parties have a good way to pay these taxes or another equitable method to pay for the roads, what are people supposed to do? We could just continue down the marry road of using foreign oil... or we can try to do something else. This is something else.

I understand what some folks are trying to do, others are just trying to save a few pennies, either one is just fine with me. Personally, I'll stick with "foreign oil."

If I was interested in burning this stuff I would probably call my state department of revenue and find out if I was supposed to be paying road taxes through some alternative method. If so, I would pay them; if not, I would have a record of asking the question.

retmil46 · #50 06-12-2007, 12:13 PM

Here's another story to contrast against this gent -

Both US and foreign oil companies are now practicing what is called "splash and dash", exploiting a loophole in the 2004 Energy Bill.

In the example given, a US oil company purchased a tanker full of 9 million gallons of biodiesel made from palm oil in Indonesia. When it pulled into a US port, they "splashed" in 9,000 gallons of regular #2 diesel, creating B99 - and making the oil company eligible to claim a $1 per gallon tax credit (9 million dollars). But instead of selling it in this country, the tanker then "dashes" over to Europe and sells it for a much higher price.

Net effect - in this instance, the country's fuel supply was actually reduced by 9,000 gallons, and the oil company walked away with 9 million of our tax money free and gratis, and it was all legal thanks to this loophole.

Even foreign oil companies are getting in on the act. They're loading up their domestically produced biodiesel in tankers, sailing it into a US port, splashing in enough #2 to get the tax credit for our government (with our money), then turning the tanker around and selling it in their own markets.

And Congress and the administration say they are "reluctant to modify the law because of the dampening effect it may have on alternative fuels". Translation - "We threw the oil companies a bone, they're pumping money into our campaign funds, we're all making money off of it, so why rock the boat".

So who's the bigger a-hole here? The one individual who was paying 30% more per gallon for soybean oil (and paying sales and food tax as well) because he felt so strongly about our dependence on foreign oil and was actually making a positive impact in that regard for his part, but was unwittingly in violation of the law. And if you read the rest of the article, he WILL be posting the required $2500 bond so he can legally burn soybean oil in his car. For him the main point is still that we need to encourage alternative fuels and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, even if it means paying more than he would for #2 from the pump.

Or is it our government and the oil companies, who knowingly crafted a law with above said loophole, and now basically refuse to do anything about it, so that the powers that be can legally scam millions of tax dollars, with the net effect actually being a reduction in our available fuel supply and the loss of government funds that would otherwise be available for road maintenance and other uses.

The law under which the gentleman was fined was passed many decades ago, long before anyone tried promoting alternative fuels. It's aim was to prevent the use of offroad #2 diesel fuel, which is untaxed and therefore cheaper and intended for use in farm and construction equipment, by deliberate tax cheats that were simply trying to save a few bucks at the pump. The law needs to be modified to account for alternative fuels.

The one good thing about this story is that it does seem to have garnered support in the state legislature for just that, some members of the NC House noting that it was hypocritical of the state to promote the use of alternative fuels on one hand (NC provides a subsidy for the retail sale of biodiesel blends) while at the same time fining individuals for actually doing so on their own. When a similar situation occurred in Illinois some time back, which had a similar law on the books, the state legislature did step up to the plate and change the law to account for use of alternative fuels.

Shorebilly · #51 06-12-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill murrow

I have been told there is enough farm land in this country that is currently unused to produce enough veg oil for all of us. Canada is growing huge amounts of rape seed for oil. Why not us? Oh yeah.....it may put a dent in the oil companies revenue.

Cheers,

Bill

I have no idea of the exact number of acres (make that sq miles) of land on which Agribusiness is paid NOT TO GROW CROPS ......but when folks start to whine about the use of Farm Cropland used to produce fuel, and therefore causing the cost of food increasing (maybe I should quote Hugo Chavez here...) because livestock feed prices are going up....but, there is something very Rotten in Washington (not Denmark) because this whole mess cannot be addressed logically by our elected officials due to the major political parties refusal to get along.....and of course the lobbyists who fill the pockets of our elected folks with cash.....most probably generated by the tax loopholes that some sensible folks would like to see closed.....

when in Rome....do as the Romans do....and follow them all the way down the tubes....to oblivion....

SB

#52 06-12-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

So who's the bigger a-hole here? The one individual who was paying 30% more per gallon for soybean oil (and paying sales and food tax as well) because he felt so strongly about our dependence on foreign oil and was actually making a positive impact in that regard for his part, but was unwittingly in violation of the law. And if you read the rest of the article, he WILL be posting the required $2500 bond so he can legally burn soybean oil in his car. For him the main point is still that we need to encourage alternative fuels and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, even if it means paying more than he would for #2 from the pump.

Or is it our government and the oil companies, who knowingly crafted a law with above said loophole, and now basically refuse to do anything about it, so that the powers that be can legally scam millions of tax dollars, with the net effect actually being a reduction in our available fuel supply and the loss of government funds that would otherwise be available for road maintenance and other uses.

Well, I don't know who's the bigger "a-hole," but I can tell who the bigger "sucker" is. I can also tell who's not very bright if he was really "unwittingly in violation of the law" while using untaxed fuel. Of course, some folks actually admit to it on public forums.

Shorebilly · #53 06-12-2007, 12:56 PM

Where is Mr. Lim when we need some rational input......

SB

probear · #54 06-12-2007, 01:01 PM

The original intent of the law was to stop the use of off-road diesel from being used illegally. Unfortunately, common sense has once again taken a back seat and the overzealous revenue agents are looking at the letter and not the intent of the law. This issue needs to be addressed, as does the issue of the bond requirements.

And yes, the oil companies take advantage of each and every loophole possible. But then again, so do I.

On another issue.....where is the line with respect to percentage of taxed fuel verses untaxed? Taking the issue to an absolute extreme, but technically correct stand, ANY additive that is not taxed makes you illegal. Octane boost, algaecide, etc. is all untaxed as far as road tax so therefore, technically illegal. Splitting hairs, sure, ridiculous, sure, but where is the legal percentage? See, common sense is not used a lot anymore.

As to WVO, I would rather see it burned in engines than recycled into livestock feed.

dwoloz · #55 06-12-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knightrider966

Hey, I'm all for taxing bicycles and making them pay their fair share! We should not have to be paying and subsidising their interests while sharing the road with them. Bicycles make so mant STUPID moves out on the road that taxing them and making them fly tags is a GREAT IDEA!

Here in Arizona, the state encourages the use of biodiesel to clear up our skies and I have a sticker on my Benz that says "Biodiesel, feed a farmer, starve a terrorist!" People get the idea!

Have you heard of sales tax? Income tax maybe?
Not just fuel tax goes to road improvement, we ALL pay taxes.

But get this, fuel tax does not actually cover for all the DAMAGE a car does to the roadway that requires repair. A bicycle however creates zero damage to the rodway. So in the end, the people driving cars are the ones swindling money as they're not putting in enough tax dollars for the damage they're doing.

#56 06-12-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by probear

The original intent of the law was to stop the use of off-road diesel from being used illegally. Unfortunately, common sense has once again taken a back seat and the overzealous revenue agents are looking at the letter and not the intent of the law. This issue needs to be addressed, as does the issue of the bond requirements.

That is the best answer, the feds and states need to decide how (and how much) to tax vehicles that use alternative fuels (not taxed at the pump). Commercial bio-diesel is taxed at the pump so it's not an issue. They may decide that these other fuels (including electric) should be partially tax exempt as a method of encouraging alternative fuel use, or they may decide they need the additional revenue. I'm sure lots of "interested parties" will have input. Either way, everyone will know the rules.

It appears that the current policy is, "don't ask; don't tell." That my be OK if there are a very small number of vehicles, but at some point a coherent policy is needed. It's simply not fair to just fine the occasional individual who's dumb enough to get caught.

probear · #57 06-12-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwoloz

But get this, fuel tax does not actually cover for all the DAMAGE a car does to the roadway that requires repair. A bicycle however creates zero damage to the rodway. So in the end, the people driving cars are the ones swindling money as they're not putting in enough tax dollars for the damage they're doing.

2 issues....
(1) a bicycle does not cause damage, but is still using the road. Federal incentives now are pushing bikeways adjacent to existing roads. Perhaps the bicycles alone should be taxed for these bike ways and exempt from any roads that they are not allowed.
(2) most road damage comes from trucks, and not cars. Road design is based on truck loads with the exception of expansion to handle excessive auto traffic, but even then, the roads are designed for truck loads. Same goes for bridges.....
Therefore, if your fairness is damage, then trucks should bear most all the cost of road repair, however, if your fairness is usage, then everyone, including cyclists should pay.

Unfortunately, there is no simple solution for road taxes. That issue spreads into infrastructure also.

#58 06-12-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by probear

2 issues....
(1) a bicycle does not cause damage, but is still using the road. Federal incentives now are pushing bikeways adjacent to existing roads. Perhaps the bicycles alone should be taxed for these bike ways and exempt from any roads that they are not allowed.

Very true, bikes do not cause road damage, but they are not free. I do like to ride my bike, but they do require significant infrastructure. Some of the bike paths in my area (adjacent to, but separate from major roads) actually have their own separate bridges so the cyclists don't have to ride on the narrow shoulder. That's very nice, but expensive. I don't know if these were paid for with road taxes or some other local "recreation" tax, like parks.

dwoloz · #59 06-12-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by probear

2 issues....
(1) a bicycle does not cause damage, but is still using the road. Federal incentives now are pushing bikeways adjacent to existing roads. Perhaps the bicycles alone should be taxed for these bike ways and exempt from any roads that they are not allowed.
(2) most road damage comes from trucks, and not cars. Road design is based on truck loads with the exception of expansion to handle excessive auto traffic, but even then, the roads are designed for truck loads. Same goes for bridges.....
Therefore, if your fairness is damage, then trucks should bear most all the cost of road repair, however, if your fairness is usage, then everyone, including cyclists should pay.

Unfortunately, there is no simple solution for road taxes. That issue spreads into infrastructure also.

My point was, everyone does pay so long as they are paying sales tax and income tax.

Whether you deny it or not, passeneger vehicles damage the road, not just trucks.

Bicycles reduce congestion and reduce pollution. It is of my opinion that is worthwhile to everyone, not just cyclists, to make more cycling road accomodations.

Bike projects by the way are primarily funded through grants given by environmental agencies and not regular funds allocated by the city

Shorebilly · #60 06-12-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

It appears that the current policy is, "don't ask; don't tell." That my be OK if there are a very small number of vehicles, but at some point a coherent policy is needed. It's simply not fair to just fine the occasional individual who's dumb enough to get caught.

Has anyone seen ANY evidence of a coherent policy relating to anything that has come out of our elected government lately?? Excepting pay raises, and travel perks for our esteemed elected officials, of course!!!

SB