Works for me. I don't see why I should be subsidizing somebody else.

I think I heard they were trying an experimental program where you can volunteer to have a GPS installed and pay by the mile. Not sure I want them to have more data on me than they have.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I completely agree with you about the speeding issue.

I am saying that sometimes they write tickets for speeding, making it enforced.

They never charge anyone with illegally using vegetable oil as a fuel (taxes aside) making it unenforced.

Two different situations.

yes - and when you start paying me to design a new bridge to replace one that has deteriorated from extreme schwinn usage - that analogy will be valid.

You're essentially "using" a diesel vehicle..and that vehicle ruts up pavement and load cycles a bridge. So pay the 38 cents/mile tax....needed to fix the HORRIFIC infrastructure that everyone complains about. I fail to see the justification here UNLESS your state has told you otherwise or proven non-responsive in taking your money. It's up to you to find that out if you want to be such a revolutionary patriot to up-end these "draconian" laws set in place to fix the freaking roads you drive on.

No, they are different. Because they have never once charged one single person with illegally using vegetable oil, only the tax and license side of it.

They have however, seldom as it is, charged people with not paying taxes on things purchased out of state.

You must be confusing my argument with others on the board. I agree that veggie car users should pay some form of taxes. I am simply arguing the legallity of using it as a fuel, taxes aside.

The operative word is "YET".

Yes, for now but not a certainty for the future and certainly not making it legal. Just makes it not enforced

Okay, I'll settle for that. :D

I think they would have to change/add laws if they truly wanted to enforce the illegal use of vegetable oil as a fuel. So in the future if they do decide to enforce it, there would need to be changes anyways.

obviously, the bike thing was a bit tongue in cheek. and hey, i dont run on VO, never have. i love my car too much. im just saying that the tax is on diesel sold for on-road vehicles, not on driving. So how can evading a non-existent tax be illegal? now on the other hand, if youre running the pink non-road diesel on public roads, that IS tax evasion because its diesel.

So here's as I see it.
[soapbox]
One side says burning WVO, VO, and home-made Bio-D is illegal because the EPA has not (or will not) 'approve' AND the tax, specifically 'road tax' is not collected.

The other side notes that the EPA knows that overall, the pollution level is greatly reduced, especially soot levels, with a slight sacrifice of increased NO2, which I might add, could easily be taken care of without the problem of soot. As to the taxes, the Feds already exempt 400 gallons a year of Bio-D and many states are getting legislation together to handle this situation as many presently do not have ANY method of collection available. Even to, bear in mind that the majority of tax money used for roads is not from the state road tax. :eek: The reality of the actual amount of money that results from tax is 25.6 cents per gallon here and varies from state to state. The Federal part is only 18.4 cents per gallon and the state portion is here As an added note, I did not deduct the 20% of this tax already paid by those of us producing Bio-D, making the difference here in Georgia, slightly less than 20 cents. :D

Two other things come to mind also. No one seems to be mentioning off road activities, such as farming, so I'll leave that one alone. The main one that I see is that for every gallon of VO, WVO or Bio-D produced, there are at least a couple of dollars NOT headed out of the country AND increases the available petroleum if ever so slightly, to those that continue to use 'dino' fuels. An example might be my driving, assuming that I run 100% Bio-D year round (which I don't but...) My yearly is 22000, and assuming 27MPG, I burn 815 gallons a year, resulting in 415 gallon non-exempt fuel. This equates to less that $21 a quarter or actually $83 a year in tax. Meanwhile, based on a 60% of the cost of diesel being crude, at $4/gal, that means that I kept over $1550 from going overseas and becoming part of the trade imbalance. (Note, the reason it's not close to $2000 is I counted the methanol as being imported, thus it's cost was deducted. )

Oh yeah, I should have carbon credits too :D

As to the EPA, well, it's a government entity that has made numerous errors in pollution control before, only to remedy with more knee jerk reactions. IMO, the basis of the EPA is to watch air quality. From the standpoint of the purpose of this division. modifying pollution equipment allowing more pollution, versus running an unapproved fuel that results in less pollution is a perfect example of big government logic, which, got us into the problem that we have now. The bureaucracy of the paper work for the EPA has shut the door on any small enterprise, much to the delight of big oil.

The EPA should have studied this months ago, instead of dragging their fat government arse. Too much regulation has stifled many upstart businesses needlessly.
[/soapbox]

Question is who wants to be the sucker, er I mean volunteer for the test case? That is what is going to take to get things clarified, laws re-written, etc, etc.

Thats because, it isn't considered a road fuel!

The catch 22 here is that the IRS cannot tax it because its not a legal fuel. If it is used as a fuel it is illegal to do so.

It would first have to be accepted as a legal alternative fuel to then go after taxes. Wouldn't be surprised to see both things happen

What happened in the Wetzel case is that one branch, completely myopic on just their job, jumped the gun. They cannot make Mr Wetzel pay taxes on something that isn't a fuel! But that does not stop the State Environmental people at the prodding of EPA from going after him for using an unapproved fuel.

All this will all shake out eventually... but people that get complained on, or call attention to themselves, might find themselves Guinea Pigs. Like Mr Wetzel. He made his actions well known so they picked up on it because he was very public about it. Easy to find.

I know Grdenko - sorry, I didn't mean that to be harsh (I should be particularly sensitive to fellow '81 240 D owner:D).

I just think, like Graplr just mentioned too.....that the avoidance of the road tax issue is less defensible than the EPA legality issue. I fully concede that it's silly for the EPA to be against it......but I don't think it's silly for the government to try and tax those that drive damaging cars/trucks on our infrastructure that they are required to maintain.....whether you agree with how they appropriate it or not. Right now - the old, antiquated structure is set up for diesel/gas taxes (not VO or electric).......and I think if you chose to put crap in a diesel engine to make it run - you should still pay road taxes on it.....or just drive on the fields adjacent to road and ford all the streams:D.

Yes, that is a great point as well. The taxes we are assuming veggie cars don't pay (I personally don't know if veggie users pay taxes or not) doesn't even come close to the $$ they are not paying to the petroleum industry and the middle east.

i dont know anything about these laws concerning 'legal' and 'illegal' fuels. but i seriously doubt that there is a law on the books anywhere that says that using any fuel other than diesel in a diesel road vehicle is illegal. well, on second thought there might be, but i havnt seen it quoted yet and i dont feel like googling it. One of you "johnny-law" types should, that would be the end of the argument. My guess is VO isnt illegal, its just not recognized as a road fuel, thats a big difference.

and again, electric cars, what about them? is electricity recognized as a 'fuel'? if its not why werent those ev1 drivers hauled off? if it is, why isnt it taxed? probably because its an 'alternative fuel', but isnt VO an 'alternative fuel' also?

this is a fun logic exercise and all, but i really would like to see some actual laws quoted.

If I didn't know better I would think you were being sarcastic. Do you just have a problem with flag burning, or do you have a problem with the entire first amendment?

I'll be sure to let you know if/when I need that ticket.

Taken from Mr. ForcedInduction.