No

Yes.

In this case, your gasoline was the additive not the VO. You are running mostly on VO and not gasoline. Unless your intention is to say it in a way that sounds good, I think you know the difference between a spoonful of sugar in coffee vs a spoonful of coffee in a 5# bag of sugar.

I agree.
Huge electric battery added to a gasoline car = extra veggie tank added to a diesel car. Both forms utilize more power via recycling (assuming WVO use in the veggie system).

The bureaucrats need to find a better way to get their road tax. The old way was "everybody's using petroleum, so let's just tax petroleum"

Over the years that has evolved into "since our road repairs are paid for by petroleum, everybody must use petroleum" That goes against the American Dream

Blacks didn't gain their right to sit in the front of the bus by passively sitting in the back of the bus.
Alternative fuel users won't gain their right to power their vehicles how they choose by passively laying back and sending in their taxes.

Look at the states that have SVO tax exemptions: did these come about from a bunch of guys that just mailed in their taxes, or from the guys that said "I don't think I should have to pay tax on MY fuel" and then DID something about it?

I heard about that. Only way you can get accurate mileage is you insert a GPS transponder in my car and make sure it cannot be removed. How many people will go for that? IIRC, they were *****ing because the cars have gotten so efficient that the taxes are not enough to cover the cost of road fixes. Like I said, how do I make sure you pay up at the end of the year? How do I know that you are reporting the right mileage? Even if you could overcome these obstacles, it is still a paperwork nightmare.

It isn't a fair system and there leaves too many grey areas out there for my liking.

Battery gets a charge from energy that it got from fuel it purchased while other is equivalent to running Off Road Fuel.

They have exemptions because it is too difficult to tax. Should it become more economical to tax, you bet there will be a tax on it

So why don't you tell the IRS "I don't think I should have to pay tax on MY earnings"? Following your argument, we will be a tax exempt state too, right?

The fact is, if EVERYONE did that, we WOULD be a tax exempt state.

People pay taxes because the IRS employs strong-arm tactics to keep everyone in line. Naturally, though, this will never happen.

This is a tangent, but the fact is, the income tax is completely illegal. Anyone else here seen "American: Freedom to Fascism"?

Doubtful. It would be a "nothing" area since they won't have any money to do anything with.

Yet another quandry. In Kentucky, we cannot voluntarily pay a highway usage tax. To be legal, I must apply for a liscense as a fuel distrubutor (though I only make it for my own use), be bonded, pay monthly fee, be inspected by safety guys (aarghh), and on and on ------ Not quite ready for that. At this point in time, I can feel good about 1) reducing emission 2) not feeding the greedy bullies 3) ultimately supporting farmers in the US. Those warm fuzzy feelings help me deal with the guilt of not being able to pay my share of taxes (realistically)

You want to set up a hot dog stand and you have to fill out all sorts of paperwork. What of it? I suppose you would like it to be one where you tell them things are ok and you both go on your merry way? I just went thru a business startup and I know it is a bit of a hassle but such is life. It would be nice if I could just set up my shop, do as I pleased and send them a few bucks once in a while but that's life.

No, that is incorrect. The battery gets its charge from the (de)acceleration of the car, not from the fuel itself.

I know you will say the fuel is what put the car in motion but the battery is not being charged because of fuel use, simply because of (de)acceleration of the vehicle.

But what if I set up a hot dog stand to feed only myself and do not sell to others? :D

Yes, it is incorrect but I think you know what I mean even when I don't spell it all out. :D

Should there be a provision for that, probably. There should be some way they can tax you for the road tax and leave you alone except for verification and safety.

Fine, you're not allowed to drive over any of the bridges we design:D.

Is that a threat? MN just had a bridge collapse last year. He might not want to drive over any bridge at this point. Ask those who were on the bridge.

maybe it fell down because there wasn't enough money to repair it properly because people are skirting their taxes????


Just kidding, just kidding, greasers.....just trying to further the madness. I can't believe Brian C. hasn't locked this biotch down yet. I suppose it's because Rich C hasn't chimed in it:)

And the bridge collapse isn't a funny topic, by the way - I wasn't trying to make light of the subject, believe me - it's every engineers/inspectors nightmare.

Aklims Hot Dog stand. LOL !


No seriously, just start taxing ammunition right Aklim, there should be some sort of "potential death tax" on ammo. I'm sure thats a tax you would disagree with.

Not every bullet results in a death. Every revolution of the wheel does result in damage to the road.

There is already a tax on ammo used for killing. It involves several years of "payment" which is why so many people are alive today. come to think of it, that is a bad thing, isn't it? So many mouths to feed.

Not if I make laps around my driveway and yard! :D

I'm all for paying the "Mouths to feed" tax, but so far all i get are B.S. road taxes with little to no roadwork being done.

I'm not a neo-con i don't mind paying my share, but i wan't to see more checks and balances on where that money is actually going. I understand the arugument to pay taxes, but C'MON ! Just the fact that you not polluting the atmosphere should absolve you from paying the road taxes.

Yes, but the point is the taxed fuel is not directly charging the battery. So the propulsion from the electric motor is not taxed.

My personal guess is that Brian is going on the theory that if we keep it here, keep it ridiculous, then it won't spread somewhere else :D

So we are a disease in quarantine?

Not exactly. But there have certainly been numerous threads in the last six months, off of which have flown quickly off into vegetable politics.

I saw that piece. It's so full of misinformation that it's downright scary. His interpretation of the tax laws makes as much difference to the courts as mine, yours or Snipes'.

This just came down the wire:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-bk-wesley-snipes-sentencing-042408,0,1299381.story

"End result - no road tax is paid on these alternative fuels."

Amen!

After 9 pages... no one seems to be recognizing that the Illegality of VO and WVO is its unauthorized use as a fuel by EPA... collecting revenue for its use aside which is DOT ... its illegal (mostly in more places than not) due to the fact EPA has never evaluated and approved it. It is illegal by default since they have not evaluated and approved it. Of course that could change some day... but... it remains the case for the most part that it is an illegal Road fuel at this time.

Except for perhaps one state, which perhaps may be upheld or over ruled. We shall have to see. It does not appear to be a high priority enforcement issue for EPA at this time. But with a state passing legislation allowing it, which makes a State Regulation "less stringent" to the Federal regulation, I would now anticipate that EPA will start to address it. Either by ruling that state out of compliance and force them to comply, or find in fact it can be run by proposing a rule and then taking comments and then modifying that section of the Clean Air Act (I think its in that one, not sure but will poke around). But it is normally illegal for a State to pass an environmental regulation that is less stringent than the federal regulation. They can though pass more stringent regulations. In this case they would be passing a less stringent one. And I expect a show down on this one fairly soon. But "soon" in Government terms is like 2-3 years sometimes. However, any state that decides to approve it, irregardless of it not being Approved by EPA, is in violation of Federal law and subject to directive action by the EPA.

To hell with EPA

I have been saying that for months.

Expect the usual retorts...

Nuh uh, it IS legal!
Its better for the environment so I say it is legal!
Screw the EPA!
Its not illegal if they don't outlaw it.
It depends on who you ask.
Its not illegal if they don't know about me using it (Don't ask don't tell).
Etc...

No matter how you try to twist the truth in your mind, IT IS ILLEGAL.

Every state has a method to report fuel tax evasion.

I thought that was gays in the military that did the "don't ask, don't tell"?

You forgot the part that if they get caught, it will be unfair, etc, etc.

What Steve300 said: To hell with EPA

1. I am increasingly developing sympathy with the "To heck with them" attitude, as I watch things get more and more ridiculous (in the world, not just on the forum). Legalizing this, illegalizing that... it isn't going to ever solve the problems.

2. It is not "ILLEGAL!!!!" to run vegetable fuels in states where legal procedures to do so have been set up. State laws that make veggie oil a legal fuel do exist, in some forms or others. In those states, it is a 100% legal fuel, thus killing the "No matter how you twist it" argument.

3. Regardless of any of the politics or morals or anything else.... one Mercedes or a hundred or a thousand makes no difference in the long run. You'd have to run every veggie Mercedes currently in this country (the USA, whose laws we are fighting over for the most part) - until they wouldn't run any longer, for the next hundred years, and the roads would probably STILL not show any signs of damage for which we should all be forced to pay. We're small fry. We're talking about a relatively minuscule amount of damage and a slightly less minuscule amount of money we're discussing handing back to them.

In other words... no matter who's "right" here, how much difference does it make on a practical level? none if any.

I smell 1984.

Libertarian my a$$.

Just because I don't like/make the laws doesn't mean I can or should ignore them.

Until the conversion is APPROVED BY THE EPA, it is illegal no matter what the states say. Federal always overrides state.

1 thief or 1,000,000 thieves makes no difference either. A thief is still a thief no matter what.

Ever heard of the old saying "10% of the vehicles cause 90% of the problems"?

Yah - as Lance pointed out - this has been pointed out approximately 6341 different times in the 6342 other threads that have degenerated into this.....it's just that this one took on more of a liquid fuels taxation theme.

The EPA has evaluated it - I believe.....but they've been waffling on the NOX emissions stance.

It could very well change though - and then it's merely a taxation issue (potential vehicular damage aside). I must agree with Aklim, it sounds like a logistical nightmare to track vehicular miles driven/year (maybe with # of axles factored in?) - although if we are mostly concerned about the infrastructure, it's the fairest way.

I think Craig suggested it before.....but a simple alternative fuels tax, say $300-500 for cars, per year is much easier to implement and you can leave the existing petro tax system in place. I'd happily pay that - versus tracking # of gallons brewed, paying quarterly, being inspected by the dept. of revenue, etc.

Update.
 

Wesley Snipes does my taxes. He says I don't have to pay, so I'm "Good to Go".

SteveM.

Quote from ForcedInduction:
"No matter how you try to twist the truth in your mind, IT IS ILLEGAL."

I would use Dick Cheney's famous reply: "So?"

If the "one state" you are referring to isn't Washington, then make that at least two states - because last month our governor signed a bill making WVO, SVO, and home brewed BIO legal for personal use (but not for resale).

So any fuel Nazis who want to inform the Gestapo can throw this little bit of info...
...right out the window where Washington State is concerned.

I've been following this thread a while and saw where someone earlier was talking about how great it is in Europe, where the government confiscates (in taxes) over half of everyone's income and turns around and gives out "free" goodies - like healthcare etc. Take a closer look at that. Like anything else run by any government anywhere their healthcare sucks. For anyone who thinks it is a socialist utopia, feel free to immigrate to the European country of your choice - no one is stopping you. But DON'T try to remake the US as another Europe...

Comparing Europe and North America is apples to oranges any way you look at it, but especially in the area of fuel costs, fuel taxes, etc. Europe has a much higher population density, which lends itself to a much more mature and fully developed transit system - which they have. North America doesn't - our population density and the wide open nature of our geography make it impractical. So in Europe they pay a HUGE percentage of tax on every gallon of road fuel to support roads that are not anywhere nearly so heavily utilized. PLUS the fuel taxes that they pay really are put back into the roads - unlike our country where it all goes into one big pot that congress can dip into and dole out as they please.

On top of that, they build their roads to LAST. When they widen a highway by adding a lane in each direction, they don't go through and widen every overpass just enough to add the one additional lane each way. They widen them enough to add two or three lanes each way - so that when they want to add another couple of lanes in the future, they don't have to rebuild every overpass again. We don't. Instead we build them just wide enough to accomodate the additional lanes we're adding NOW - and then rebuild them all over again in 10 years when we need to widen the road again. What a waste!

When they lay new asphault they take old tire carcasses, grind them up, and then add that to the asphault mix. They kill two birds with one stone that way. They recycle the old tires, and by adding just 10% rubber (by volume) to the asphault mix, it will last 2 to 3 times longer! Talk about a win-win! But we don't do that. NOOOOO, we pile tires up by the millions, and award all our road building to the lowest bidder (which means the cheapest materials) and just keep repaving them every 5 years - instead of only having to repave every 15 years. Who makes those stupid decisions and wastes billions doing it this way? Why our Government of course! And how are they funding this huge waste of money? They're sucking the life blood out of us poor working stiffs by adding taxes on every possible thing you do or buy. And yet it isn't enough! They are constantly screaming that they need MORE money and MORE money and raising this tax and that tax and adding a tax on this and on that....

Personally, I have had enough! I'M MAD AS HELL AND I"M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! Is burning Veg illegal? I don't give a damn! It shouldn't be because the only reason they have made it illegal is to force us into paying more taxes to feed the insatiable appetite of the Government machine. The fact is, every one of us does something illegal every frigging day - either intentionally or unintentionally. Speeding, rolling stops, crossing the white line, jaywalking, smoking less than 25 feet from a building's entrance (yes that is illegal in Washington state), misreporting the sale price on something, buying NEW merchandise on eBay or over the internet without paying the state sales tax (yes, that is illegal - the law says you still owe the tax). It is damn near impossible for a person to live and not break some stupid law or other - because there are too damn many stupid laws. Whatever happend to being a FREE people?

It is time for the people to start to rebel, and this is a pretty benign, small, form of rebellion IMO. So to those of you who want to get on your high horse about paying or not paying the fuel tax, all I can say is "...people in glass houses..." because you are almost certainly breaking some laws and evading some taxes yourself if you ever drive a vehicle or buy anything over the internet.

If the government would use and spend the money they take away from me as wisely and carefully as I spend what they let me keep, I wouldn't have a problem with them confiscating 30%-40% of everything I earn (note the emphasis - I earn it by my labor - the government doesn't earn it because they produce nothing of value - they just take it away from me at the point of a gun). Until they do, I am not going to give them ONE THIN DIME more than I absolutely have to - even if it means I'm not following the letter of every stupid law they have passed to try to control every aspect of my life and livelyhood...

To quote one of my favorite movie characters...
"And that's all I have to say about that..."

Lance,
Have you ever thrown a snowball?

So what's your point? That because I am a thief your thievery is diminished? I suppose if you get into trouble with the law and go to court, your defense is to tell the judge, jury and prosecution "you have all broken the law at some time or the other.... people in glass houses.... Therefore, you should vote "not guilty". I rest my case."?

Just because you call yourself a Liberitarian doesn't make you one either - you are advocating in favor of MORE government and using socialist countries as your shining examples.

Possibly. Could it be the EPA - which is NOT authorized by the constitution and is NOT elected by the people or accountable to us in any way, but is controlling so many aspects of our lives, is overstepping their bounds?

Ever buy anything over the internet? Did you pay your state the sales taxes that would have been due if you bought it at the corner store? NO? Well then you are one of the thieves too...


Nope. Sounds like something you just made up. I have heard the saying that the 20% of the people cause 80% of the problems. It is known as the 80/20 rule or to be more precise, the Peretto Principle. But even if it were 10/90 - ALL alternative fuel vehicles combined wouldn't even approach the 10% - more like .10%

It also says 20% of the people do 80% of the work and 20% of the people come up with 80% of the solutions.

Which 20% are you - the "problem" 20% or the "solution" 20%? From their comments, if I were to poll the members around here, I think I know the general consensus answer, but I'd be interested to hear which category YOU think you fit into ;)

My .02 is that WVO should be recycled into napalm and dropped on the IRS, not burned in cars.

Please show me one, just one example of anyone arrested, charged, convicted, and put in jail for running vegetable oil in their vehicles.

I've heard of the IRS cracking down on some veggers, but never any criminal prosecution.

http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/local_news/1021491.txt

Does that count?

In any case, my point is that rcounts was talking about people in glass houses. My point is that that won't wash. What's your point?

My point is that YOU are preaching and railing against something you are guilty of yourself. It is called hypocrisy and is generally not an admired trait. YOU are not my judge or jury, sir, and in this case I believe your hypocrisy is showing...

As for the courtroom setting, the exact argument that you make so facetiously has indeed been made - and successfully I might add. It is called jury nullification and has been used to make the point that a law is unjust numerous times.

Ever heard of Rodney King? IIRC, he was found not guilty on all counts by a jury of his peers - even though he was clearly guilty. It was done as a means to redress the unjustice that was done to him. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it does happen.

This looks to me like they are charged with not paying taxes. They were not charged with illegally running vegetable oil. In fact the article mentions that if they do this...then they can continue to run vegetable oil. That sounds like as long as they do that (apply for some license) and pay the tax then the government would not have a problem with it.

So then I would say no, that doesn't count. I'm looking for criminal prosecution of running vegetable oil as its own charge.

My point is that there are many, many laws that are not enforced. Many of them stupid. Which is why I asked Lance if he has ever thrown a snowball because it is illegal to throw a snowball in Colorado.

My point is that even though it may be illegal according to the law, it is not enforced, just like throwing a snowball may not be enforced.

So should I go around telling all the people throwing snowballs in Colorado that they are breaking the law even though they will never be charged with anything?

Only if you can show that they followed through on it and actually made him pay the fines etc. Which I seem to recall reading somewhere that they didn't.

Another case of an unjust law - that he was clearly guilty of breaking - being "nullified" by popular opinion...

So how would you find a jury where all are innocent of ANY crime?