|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > June 2007 > Driver ticketed for using biofuel
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Driver ticketed for using biofuel
|
|
| GeekBoy 2007-06-18, 3:25 am |
| Vegetable oil sticks him with $1,000 fine
Bruce Henderson, The Charlotte Observer
Bob Teixeira decided it was time to take a stand against U.S. dependence on
foreign oil.
So last fall the Charlotte musician and guitar instructor spent $1,200 to
convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil. He bought soybean
oil in 5-gallon jugs at Costco, spending about 30 percent more than diesel
would cost.
His reward, from a state that heavily promotes alternative fuels: a $1,000
fine last month for not paying motor fuel taxes. He has been told to expect
another $1,000 fine from the federal government.
To legally use veggie oil, state officials told him, he would have to first
post a $2,500 bond.
Teixeira is one of a growing number of fuel-it-yourselfers -- backyard
brewers who recycle restaurant grease or make moonshine for their car tanks.
They do it to save money, reduce pollution or thumb their noses at oil
sheiks.
They're also caught in a web of little-known state laws that can stifle
energy independence.
State Sen. Stan Bingham, R-Denton, is known around Raleigh for his diesel
Volkswagen fueled by used soybean oil. The car sports a "Goodbye, OPEC"
sign.
"If somebody was going to go to this much trouble to drive around in a car
that uses soybean oil, they ought to be exempt" from state taxes, he said.
The state Department of Revenue, which fined Teixeira, has asked legislators
to waive the $2,500 bond for small fuel users. The department also told
Teixeira, after the Observer asked about his case this week, that it will
compromise on his fine.
But officials say they'll keep pursuing taxes on all fuels used in highway
vehicles. With its 29.9-cent a gallon gas tax, the state collects $1.2
billion each year to pay for road construction.
"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."
Alternative support
State policies firmly endorse alternative fuels.
In 2005 legislators directed state agencies to replace 20 percent of their
annual petroleum use with alternatives by 2010. About 6,000 of the state's
8,500 vehicles are equipped to use ethanol. The state fleet also includes
about 135 gas-electric hybrids.
Few states, however, are prepared to regulate the new fuels, says the
National VegOil Board, which promotes vegetable oil fuel.
"State offices do not have the forms to appropriately and fairly deal with
VegOil, nor the staff to enforce the nonexistent forms," said director
Cynthia Shelton. "So either they tell people inquiring about compliance to
get lost, or they make them jump a bunch of arbitrary hoops."
Outraged Illinois legislators this spring quickly waived that state's $2,500
bond requirement when an elderly man was nabbed for using waste vegetable
oil.
In the mountain district of state Sen. John Snow, D-Cherokee, home-brewed
ethanol was once known as moonshine. But a couple of constituents who made
it for fuel have been fined for the same tax violation that got Teixeira in
trouble.
Snow has introduced several bills to promote biodiesel, which under state
law includes vegetable oil.
"One of the biggest problems in the state is a real lack of information for
people who want to use alternative fuels," said Snow's research assistant,
Jonathan Ducote. "It's just now appearing on [regulators'] radar."
Speedway sting
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.
The investigators spotted Teixeira's passing bumper sticker: "Powered by
100% vegetable oil."
"It was like some twist of fate that put me there," he said. "It was like I
was asking for them to stop me."
Teixeira says revenue officials are just doing their jobs. But he thinks
it's unfair that he was lumped with people who purposely try to avoid fuel
taxes.
"Individuals who are trying to do the right thing environmentally cannot and
should not continue to take this kind of financial hit," he wrote Gov. Mike
Easley.
He'll pay the state fine and apply for a state fuel license.
"I'm ready to get myself legal," he said, "and start using vegetable oil
again."
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/599471.html
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-18, 9:25 am |
| On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:40:46 -0500, "GeekBoy" <geeekdude@yeehoo.com> wrote:
>Vegetable oil sticks him with $1,000 fine
>Bruce Henderson, The Charlotte Observer
>
>
>Bob Teixeira decided it was time to take a stand against U.S. dependence on
>foreign oil.
>So last fall the Charlotte musician and guitar instructor spent $1,200 to
>convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil. He bought soybean
>oil in 5-gallon jugs at Costco, spending about 30 percent more than diesel
>would cost.
>
>His reward, from a state that heavily promotes alternative fuels: a $1,000
>fine last month for not paying motor fuel taxes. He has been told to expect
>another $1,000 fine from the federal government.
>
>To legally use veggie oil, state officials told him, he would have to first
>post a $2,500 bond.
Good! It's about time that the lunatic fringe has to pay their fair share. The rest
of us conventional non-road-taxed fuel users (mainly propane and natural gas) have
been paying separate road taxes for decades. I ran a small propane powered delivery
truck fleet for years and I paid road taxes just like everyone else. The difference
was that I had to account for it and mail payments to the state instead of having it
automatically collected at the pump. I had a state-issued decal for each truck
window that kept the state revenuers away.
There is no difference between this guy and the farmer who puts untaxed ag diesel in
his truck. Either way it's evading road taxes.
This fellow seems to think that the rest of us ought to reward him for ruining a
perfectly good vehicle to make a meaningless "statement". "look at me, I'm special."
For once, government seems to be doing something right in slapping him down.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Why the US is losing its competitivve edge:"It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."-James Niccol
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-18, 9:25 am |
| Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>... I ran a small propane powered delivery truck fleet for years and I paid
>road taxes just like everyone else.
About the same per mile as the gasoline tax?
Seems like you should pay less, if your fuel doesn't come from Iraq.
Nick
| |
| GeekBoy 2007-06-18, 9:25 am |
|
"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
news:9iuc735vr7a60gv36p5401q4g852eukrgs@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:40:46 -0500, "GeekBoy" <geeekdude@yeehoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Good! It's about time that the lunatic fringe has to pay their fair
> share. The rest
> of us conventional non-road-taxed fuel users (mainly propane and natural
> gas) have
> been paying separate road taxes for decades. I ran a small propane
> powered delivery
> truck fleet for years and I paid road taxes just like everyone else. The
> difference
> was that I had to account for it and mail payments to the state instead of
> having it
> automatically collected at the pump. I had a state-issued decal for each
> truck
> window that kept the state revenuers away.
>
> There is no difference between this guy and the farmer who puts untaxed ag
> diesel in
> his truck. Either way it's evading road taxes.
>
> This fellow seems to think that the rest of us ought to reward him for
> ruining a
> perfectly good vehicle to make a meaningless "statement". "look at me,
> I'm special."
> For once, government seems to be doing something right in slapping him
> down.
>
So then you think electric cars should pay NO road tax and hybrids pay less
for the same road usage?
Fascinating.
> John
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> Why the US is losing its competitivve edge:"It used to be that the USA was
> pretty good at
> producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing
> with."-James Niccol
>
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-18, 1:25 pm |
| On 18 Jun 2007 08:52:37 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>
>About the same per mile as the gasoline tax?
Probably. I say that only because I don't recall what the motor fuel taxes were back
then.
>
>Seems like you should pay less, if your fuel doesn't come from Iraq.
Seems like you ought to un-warp your view of what taxes are for. Road taxes are for
funding road construction and maintenance and not to make some sort of inane
political statement. It's one of the few taxes that work well and are applied
proportionally, at least when the political pricks keep their fingers out of the pie.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
What do you call 10 blondes standing in a row? Pneumatic air line.
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-18, 1:25 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:24:48 -0500, "GeekBoy" <geeekdude@yeehoo.com> wrote:
>"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
>
>
>So then you think electric cars should pay NO road tax and hybrids pay less
>for the same road usage?
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what sort of splintered logic you used to
come to that conclusion. Whatever you're smoking must be pretty stout.
Electric and other so-called alternative fueled vehicles should pay the same road tax
as everyone else. The current system was devised when there were no alternative
fueled vehicles and everyone got about the same mileage. Thus the per-gallon tax,
one of the easiest to administer and collect. Vehicles are classified according to
weight and the heavier ones pay additional tax, reflective of the additional damage
they do to the roads.
This formula will have to be changed to remain equitable. Probably to a miles-driven
basis. The only other basis would be an energy-consumed basis, something quite
difficult to do while preventing widespread cheating.
The infrastructure for a mileage-based tax is already in place in many areas in the
form of emission stations. Simply require electric and other similar vehicles to get
an annual "emissions check" (readout of the OBDII data) which reports the mileage.
Set the tag renewal fee proportional to the miles reported.
The tax rate should be set proportional to the road impact which in turn is
proportional to the pavement specific loading (pounds per square inch of tire contact
patch). This is the basis for the current graduated tax on larger vehicles. On this
basis, pure-electrics with their heavy batteries and narrow low rolling resistance
tires will pay a bit more per mile.
John, who drives electric vehicles but doesn't want any special set-asides.
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
What do you call a blonde's dildo? Pneumatic tool.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-18, 5:25 pm |
| Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>Road taxes are for funding road construction and maintenance...
In my opinion, we should include the cost of getting our oil out
from under other countries in the cost of a gallon of gasoline,
instead of subsidizing oil companies with our income taxes.
This more direct allocation would send a more direct free-market
message to consumers.
Nick
| |
| GeekBoy 2007-06-18, 5:25 pm |
|
"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
news:togd7359kjp9ibhueclosd4s6koriikuum@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:24:48 -0500, "GeekBoy" <geeekdude@yeehoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what sort of splintered logic
> you used to
> come to that conclusion. Whatever you're smoking must be pretty stout.
>
> Electric and other so-called alternative fueled vehicles should pay the
> same road tax
> as everyone else. The current system was devised when there were no
> alternative
And what road tax would that be if you are putting no fuels or very little
fuels into the vehicle and getting the same road usage say as a similar 100
fueled vehicle?
> fueled vehicles and everyone got about the same mileage. Thus the
> per-gallon tax,
> one of the easiest to administer and collect. Vehicles are classified
> according to
> weight and the heavier ones pay additional tax, reflective of the
> additional damage
> they do to the roads.
>
I have a Dodge Ram 2500, I do not pay a higher tax, but I do pay a higher
yearly registration fees because of the higher poetential damage I could do
to the roads.
Though I could get it slashed in half if I proclaim I use it for farm use.
> This formula will have to be changed to remain equitable. Probably to a
> miles-driven
> basis. The only other basis would be an energy-consumed basis, something
> quite
> difficult to do while preventing widespread cheating.
>
> The infrastructure for a mileage-based tax is already in place in many
> areas in the
> form of emission stations. Simply require electric and other similar
> vehicles to get
> an annual "emissions check" (readout of the OBDII data) which reports the
> mileage.
> Set the tag renewal fee proportional to the miles reported.
Problem with that is not all states have emmissions testing and have no need
in the future for it because of low population and better emission controls
being put on vehicles as time goes by.
>
> The tax rate should be set proportional to the road impact which in turn
> is
> proportional to the pavement specific loading (pounds per square inch of
> tire contact
> patch). This is the basis for the current graduated tax on larger
> vehicles. On this
> basis, pure-electrics with their heavy batteries and narrow low rolling
> resistance
> tires will pay a bit more per mile.
Already done with most states via higher annual registration fees
>
> John, who drives electric vehicles but doesn't want any special
> set-asides.
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> What do you call a blonde's dildo? Pneumatic tool.
>
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2007-06-18, 5:25 pm |
| Per Neon John:
>road taxes just like everyone else.
Anybody know how they're handling the mixed-mode vehicles like
Prius?
--
PeteCresswell
| |
| GeekBoy 2007-06-18, 8:25 pm |
|
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:ccud739da0llcugl83jootbh4opv6eeraj@4ax.com...
> Per Neon John:
>
> Anybody know how they're handling the mixed-mode vehicles like
> Prius?
I think in some states they pay a bit higher registration fee.
> --
> PeteCresswell
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-18, 8:25 pm |
| On 18 Jun 2007 15:10:48 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>
>In my opinion, we should include the cost of getting our oil out
>from under other countries in the cost of a gallon of gasoline,
>instead of subsidizing oil companies with our income taxes.
>
>This more direct allocation would send a more direct free-market
>message to consumers.
Yo, Nick,
You're getting waaaaay out there again. Take a breath, knock off the dope for a day
and get a grip.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
What do you call a blonde's cranial cavity? Vacuum chamber?
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-18, 8:25 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:31:22 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>Per Neon John:
>
>Anybody know how they're handling the mixed-mode vehicles like
>Prius?
Prius is just a gasoline fueled car with a particularly efficient electrical variable
speed transmission. Ergo it's licensed and taxed like any other gas car. If plug-in
hybrids ever become anything other than a boutique fringe then the tax law will have
to be revised accordingly. Probably the easiest thing to do, at least in the
beginning, is to tack on an extra fixed fee to account for the average number of
electric miles estimated for the whole fleet of 'em.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
What do you call 4 Blondes in an Abrams? Air Tank.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2007-06-18, 9:25 pm |
| Neon John wrote:
....
> The infrastructure for a mileage-based tax is already in place in many areas in the
> form of emission stations. Simply require electric and other similar vehicles to get
> an annual "emissions check" (readout of the OBDII data) which reports the mileage.
> Set the tag renewal fee proportional to the miles reported.
>
> The tax rate should be set proportional to the road impact which in turn is
> proportional to the pavement specific loading (pounds per square inch of tire contact
> patch). This is the basis for the current graduated tax on larger vehicles. On this
> basis, pure-electrics with their heavy batteries and narrow low rolling resistance
> tires will pay a bit more per mile.
....
I can see where this could get complicated if you don't do all
your driving in one state or entirely on public roads. You would
need to keep track of which states you drove which miles and
how much of your driving was off-road.
Then again, when was any tax actually fair? Why not just add a
road tax to all sales of electricity, vegetable oil and alcohol?
Anthony
| |
| Balanced View 2007-06-19, 3:25 am |
| GeekBoy wrote:
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:ccud739da0llcugl83jootbh4opv6eeraj@4ax.com...
>
>
> I think in some states they pay a bit higher registration fee.
>
>
>
>
>
That's the problem with our system, it's all about punishment and no
reward. People that do the right thing should be encouraged through
(road) tax cuts and other incentives instead of finding ways to tax back
whatever savings they may find driving a very fuel efficient or
alternative fueled vehicle. What's next, taxing bicycles and sail boats?
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-19, 3:25 am |
| Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>Yo, Nick,
>
>You're getting waaaaay out there again...
We might call this "rational allocation of costs," with clear market
signals to consumers. Tom Doggett calculates the total cost of a gallon
of gasoline as $15.14, including the cost of troops in Iraq, which
we now pay separately as income tax.
I suggest we pay it all at the pump.
Nick
| |
| GeekBoy 2007-06-19, 9:25 am |
|
"Balanced View" <Nill@nill.net> wrote in message
news:f573kq$atr$1@aioe.org...
> GeekBoy wrote:
> That's the problem with our system, it's all about punishment and no
> reward. People that do the right thing should be encouraged through
> (road) tax cuts and other incentives instead of finding ways to tax back
> whatever savings they may find driving a very fuel efficient or
> alternative fueled vehicle. What's next, taxing bicycles and sail boats?
Yes so people should start locking their fuel tank up and keeping the
government's nose out of their business.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-19, 9:25 am |
|
nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> Tom Doggett calculates the total cost of a gallon
> of gasoline as $15.14, including the cost of troops in Iraq
Pure fantasy of course.
Graham
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-19, 9:25 am |
| Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Pure fantasy of course.
Of course. The troops in Iraq are VOLUNTEERS! They don't get paid.
And the bombs and bullets and tanks and planes are ARMY SURPLUS :-)
We'd have to get rid of it somehow...
Nick
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-19, 9:25 am |
| On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:08:47 -0700, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>Neon John wrote:
>...
>...
>I can see where this could get complicated if you don't do all
>your driving in one state or entirely on public roads. You would
>need to keep track of which states you drove which miles and
>how much of your driving was off-road.
The off-road part is no different than today. You can keep track of those miles,
file a refund request and get your money back (and probably get audited which'll cost
you much more than you saved) or you can run untaxed fuel. For those whose off-road
activities are casual, most (all?) just pay the tax by buying fuel at the pump. Those
whose activities are not casual (farming, heavy equipment, reefers on trucks, etc.)
buy and use untaxed fuel. You can buy untaxed diesel at any truck stop (select
"reefer fuel" at the pump) and you can buy untaxed diesel and gasoline at the
farmer's co-op in your area. Of course, most folks don't bother because it's not
worth the hassle. I DO fill my generator fuel tanks at the co-op because TN's tax is
substantial.
As far as mult-state driving goes, let's hope that the pols are rational about this
and just let one pay based on his home address with the assumption that it'll all
equalize out in the end. God help us if we get in the same situation as the trucking
industry with the IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement). A trucker (or his
company) has to account for miles driven in each state. He pays at the pump plus he
pays to his home state and the money is distributed to the other states per his
report.
This is actually BETTER than it used to be just a few years ago when a trucker had to
apply to every individual state for a tax decal and pay each individually. You might
remember seeing the so-called "bingo tags" on semis - license plate-sized metal
plates containing dozens of little tax stamps.
>
>Then again, when was any tax actually fair? Why not just add a
>road tax to all sales of electricity, vegetable oil and alcohol?
Because the washing machine, the french fryer and the boozer aren't using and
impacting roadways. The whole idea of a use tax is to let the users pay for the
facility or service being provided. I intentionally didn't use the word "fair"
because that word is now so overloaded with socialist crap as to be meaningless. The
tax SHOULD be equitable.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Nuke the Whales!
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-19, 9:25 am |
| On 19 Jun 2007 03:58:35 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>We might call this "rational allocation of costs," with clear market
>signals to consumers. Tom Doggett calculates the total cost of a gallon
>of gasoline as $15.14, including the cost of troops in Iraq, which
>we now pay separately as income tax.
>
>I suggest we pay it all at the pump.
<theme of Twilight Zone plays in the background>. Nick, you have a fertile
imagination. At the same time you illustrate the disaster that ensues when academics
are allowed to influence public policy. Do work a little harder, though. You have
yet to mention Lyndon LaRoach, The Illuminati, the Tri-lats or the free masons. No
good conspiracy theory is complete without those.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
There is room for all of God's creatures.... Right next to the mashed potatoes.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
You seem to like freer markets...
[color=darkred]
>
><theme of Twilight Zone plays in the background>. Nick, you have a fertile
>imagination. At the same time you illustrate the disaster that ensues when
>academics are allowed to influence public policy.
Foist, I'm not an academic, just a working engineer. Second, what disaster?
I suggest you skip the insults and simply tell us what you think is wrong
with paying the total cost of gasoline at the pump instead of subsidizing
the oil companies with our income taxes.
Nick
| |
|
|
"Balanced View" <Nill@nill.net> wrote in message
news:f573kq$atr$1@aioe.org...
> GeekBoy wrote:
> That's the problem with our system, it's all about punishment and no
> reward.
Being asked to pay your fair share of the costs to maintain the roads you
use is "Punishment"?
>People that do the right thing should be encouraged through
> (road) tax cuts and other incentives instead of finding ways to tax back
> whatever savings they may find driving a very fuel efficient or
> alternative fueled vehicle.
Isn't the encouragement of "whatever savings they may find" enough?
You still drive on roads don't you?
You'd ask everyone else to subsidize your transportation?
>What's next, taxing bicycles and sail boats?
Neither of which have an appreciable impact on the roads.
Al G
| |
| Balanced View 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| Al G wrote:
> "Balanced View" <Nill@nill.net> wrote in message
> news:f573kq$atr$1@aioe.org...
>
>
> Being asked to pay your fair share of the costs to maintain the roads you
> use is "Punishment"?
>
>
>
>
> Isn't the encouragement of "whatever savings they may find" enough?
> You still drive on roads don't you?
> You'd ask everyone else to subsidize your transportation?
>
What makes you think that gas and registration taxes are all that pay
for the roads? They don't, it's subsidized by
general revenue from taxes everyone pays. If we have an energy crisis
looming people should be encouraged to
use alternative fuel vehicles, not punished for doing so.
>
>
> Neither of which have an appreciable impact on the roads.
>
>
> Al G
>
>
>
That's not the point, the bikes use the roads and burn no fuel, therfore
cyclists are " Not Paying their fair share",
in your terms they're are expecting "everyone else to subsidize" their
transportation.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| >>>> road taxes just like everyone else.
> That's the problem with our system, it's all about punishment and no
> reward. People that do the right thing should be encouraged through
> (road) tax cuts and other incentives instead of finding ways to tax back
> whatever savings they may find driving a very fuel efficient or
Why should I pay for someone else to buy a new car? Hey if you feel that
way send me a few grand and I'll retire my old (1964), very fuel inefficient
(empty it makes about 10 mpg, loaded it makes around 8), very polluting (it
has NO emissions control what so ever) 1 ton truck.
> alternative fueled vehicle. What's next, taxing bicycles and sail boats?
The last time I checked it cost just as much to dock a sail boat as it did a
power boat. Seems everyone has to pay for using the system.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| >>>>>Seems like you should pay less, if your fuel doesn't come from Iraq.
>
> We might call this "rational allocation of costs," with clear market
> signals to consumers. Tom Doggett calculates the total cost of a gallon
> of gasoline as $15.14, including the cost of troops in Iraq, which
> we now pay separately as income tax.
>
> I suggest we pay it all at the pump.
Why not include the cost of our troops in Germany and Japan and Korea and
every where else? Seeing as how the US, with very little support, has kept
countries like the USSR and China and crazy people like Qaddafi and Hussein
in check for the last 50+ years I think we have gotten quite a bargain for
what we have paid our troops. Too bad we can't live in the world you seek
then we could charge countries like Japan, Germany, France and the rest an
"allocation of costs" for all the money we spent keeping them safe with our
troops and equipment.
How long do you think West Germany would have remained free w/o US troops?
How long do you think South Korea would have remained free w/o US troops?
Taiwan? How well do you think the Japanese economy would have done w/o the
protection of the US? Taiwan's? Do a little research and see look at how
little, as a percentage of the GNP countries like Canada and the others
mentioned spent on its own defense during the 'cold war' era. Then check
the same numbers for the USSR, China and the US.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| >>> Tom Doggett calculates the total cost of a gallon
>
> Of course. The troops in Iraq are VOLUNTEERS! They don't get paid.
> And the bombs and bullets and tanks and planes are ARMY SURPLUS :-)
> We'd have to get rid of it somehow...
Hum. . .let's see. Before the 1990 war how much oil were we getting from
Iraq? Quite a bit. After the 1990 war how much oil were we getting from
Iraq? Still a lot. Now how much oil are we getting from Iraq? Very
little. Seems that our plan to steal the oil from them hasn't worked to
well has it?
Was/is the war over there about oil? Yes and no. As it stands now, and its
been this way for a LONG time, the world (not just the US) runs on oil.
That means that the world (again not just the US) depends on a free flow of
oil. If that flow is interrupted bad things happen world wide. Think about
what would happen in your country if things collapsed. What do you think
would happen if all the oil going through the Strait of Hormuz stopped?
Right now only the US has the ability and the guts to admit this and do
something when that free flow is in danger. Well not quite. The French are
willing to pay bribes and the Germans are willing help kill Kurdish women
and children to keep their oil flowing.
Another question, was WWII about oil? Yes and no. A lot of men died for
oil in that war. Ever heard of Romania? Specifically the area around
Ploiesti? If not look it up and read some.
That's the yes part. The for the no part you'd have to look at all the
other places the US has put troops in harms way where there is no oil. Just
since WWII; Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey, Nicaragua, the
Philippines, El Salvador and many more you have probably never heard of and
some you never will. Seems the US has this funny notion that shedding the
blood of its citizens to allow others to live in the same freedom is worth
the cost.
Now if you think we shouldn't be doing all of this for oil then why don't
you stop using it? Of course you won't. If nothing else you'll never give
up the computer you use to spout your drivel. Oh, I'm sorry didn't you know
that your computer is made from oil. But if you'd like to try I can tell
you where you can find some nice Amish people who can teach you how.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| >> The tax rate should be set proportional to the road impact which in turn
> ...
> I can see where this could get complicated if you don't do all
> your driving in one state or entirely on public roads. You would
> need to keep track of which states you drove which miles and
> how much of your driving was off-road.
Which is just what interstate trucking companies are required to do.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| >>>We might call this "rational allocation of costs," with clear market
>
> You seem to like freer markets...
The less government interference the better, to a point. In a lot of cases
no government interference is that point but not always.
>
>
> Foist, I'm not an academic, just a working engineer. Second, what
> disaster?
> I suggest you skip the insults and simply tell us what you think is wrong
> with paying the total cost of gasoline at the pump instead of subsidizing
> the oil companies with our income taxes.
How about the fact you can never know the cost? How much do we add into the
cost when an oil field worker falls from an oil rig and is killed? Who gets
to decide how much what is worth? Is the life of that worker killed on the
rig worth more or less than the life of an oil company executive who is
killed in a crash on his way to a board meeting? Do we use the price of
gasoline to pay to raise the families of people killed along the way?
| |
| GeekBoy 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
|
"no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:Y9Vdi.35701$G23.1726@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>
> Hum. . .let's see. Before the 1990 war how much oil were we getting from
> Iraq? Quite a bit. After the 1990 war how much oil were we getting from
> Iraq? Still a lot. Now how much oil are we getting from Iraq? Very
> little. Seems that our plan to steal the oil from them hasn't worked to
> well has it?
>
> Was/is the war over there about oil? Yes and no. As it stands now, and
> its been this way for a LONG time, the world (not just the US) runs on
> oil. That means that the world (again not just the US) depends on a free
> flow of oil. If that flow is interrupted bad things happen world wide.
> Think about what would happen in your country if things collapsed. What
> do you think would happen if all the oil going through the Strait of
> Hormuz stopped?
>
> Right now only the US has the ability and the guts to admit this and do
> something when that free flow is in danger. Well not quite. The French
> are willing to pay bribes and the Germans are willing help kill Kurdish
> women and children to keep their oil flowing.
>
> Another question, was WWII about oil? Yes and no. A lot of men died for
> oil in that war. Ever heard of Romania? Specifically the area around
> Ploiesti? If not look it up and read some.
>
> That's the yes part. The for the no part you'd have to look at all the
> other places the US has put troops in harms way where there is no oil.
> Just since WWII; Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey,
> Nicaragua, the Philippines, El Salvador and many more you have probably
> never heard of and some you never will. Seems the US has this funny
> notion that shedding the blood of its citizens to allow others to live in
> the same freedom is worth the cost.
Yes, but Japan invaded China for its oil and other resources since only
thing Japan has is ocean water, rocks, and seafood.
>
> Now if you think we shouldn't be doing all of this for oil then why don't
> you stop using it? Of course you won't. If nothing else you'll never
> give up the computer you use to spout your drivel. Oh, I'm sorry didn't
> you know that your computer is made from oil. But if you'd like to try I
> can tell you where you can find some nice Amish people who can teach you
> how.
>
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| On 19 Jun 2007 11:37:43 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>Foist, I'm not an academic, just a working engineer. Second, what disaster?
>I suggest you skip the insults and simply tell us what you think is wrong
>with paying the total cost of gasoline at the pump instead of subsidizing
>the oil companies with our income taxes.
Your economic theory is the economics version of the over-unity and zero-point energy
"theories". Calling it "crackpot" is being too kind. It's hard to discuss without
giving it attention and credibility that it doesn't deserve. I will simply ask some
questions - why would you single out petroleum products? Is it that thoughtless and
undefined but intense hatred of "oil companies" that so many people express who let
the media think for them?
Yours is fairly obviously a selfish position (I'd lay heavy odds that you don't drive
much) but don't you realize that any such price increase from such felicitous
accounting will filter right back down on you? Don't you realize that it's not the
"corporations and big oil companies" that pay for your sort of brain rot when it
makes it into policy but instead "us", that is, those of us who work and those of us
who are stockholders, who pay?
Finally, in the venerable words of Tonto, "what's this socialist 'we' shit, white
man?" I don't subsidize any oil company with my taxes. I prefer to think of my
taxes going to Stockpile Stewardship and other nuclear weapons-related R&D. If you
want to pretend that your taxes are somehow subsidizing oil companies then at least
have the cojones to say "I" and "my".
John, who visualizes the whole middle east as one big glass-lined open pit oil well.
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Remember, amateurs made the Ark, professionals made the Titanic.
| |
| daestrom 2007-06-19, 8:25 pm |
|
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f58t87$jvb@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>
> You seem to like freer markets...
>
>
> Foist, I'm not an academic, just a working engineer. Second, what
> disaster?
> I suggest you skip the insults and simply tell us what you think is wrong
> with paying the total cost of gasoline at the pump instead of subsidizing
> the oil companies with our income taxes.
>
How much will all the accountants cost to figure it out? Surely some of the
costs of the military in Iraq are involved, but since we don't get very much
oil from Iraq, how much of the military cost is for oil and how much for
'something else'? Do we get much oil from Afghanistan? We certainly have
expended military 'costs' there.
Considering how much money is spent in and how little oil comes out of Iraq,
I'm sure Doggett's number is just a wild-a??-guess. Point is, you and I and
everyone else would argue about the dollar amount till the cows come home
and none of us would have the 'right' number.
daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2007-06-19, 8:25 pm |
|
"no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:Y9Vdi.35700$G23.13989@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>
> Why not include the cost of our troops in Germany and Japan and Korea and
> every where else? Seeing as how the US, with very little support, has
> kept countries like the USSR and China and crazy people like Qaddafi and
> Hussein in check for the last 50+ years I think we have gotten quite a
> bargain for what we have paid our troops.
Now, now, you *know* that other countries have contributed to maintaining
world peace. To claim we had 'very little support' is just silly. Maybe
you need to study your history some more.
daestrom
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2007-06-19, 9:25 pm |
| no spam wrote:
....<snip bit about taxing cars per mile>...
>
> Which is just what interstate trucking companies are required to do.
Presumably this could be automated using GPS recorders in the cars
that are "tamper proof" and which report miles driven (and where)
periodically to the state through the cell phone network.
Any car with On-Star already has all the parts required.
There might be some privacy issues, especially once the cops start
to track people down by having their cars squeal on them. I suppose
they could add a remote kill-switch as well so the cops can stop
your car without having to chase it.
Anthony
--
"No, as a matter of fact. It's not 1984."
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-20, 1:25 pm |
| Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>... I don't subsidize any oil company with my taxes.
We all do, in my opinion. Oil would cost a lot more if
oil companies paid the entire cost of acquiring it.
What was the cost of the Afghanistan pipeline?
Nick
| |
| no spam 2007-06-20, 1:25 pm |
| >>>>> Tom Doggett calculates the total cost of a gallon
>
> Yes, but Japan invaded China for its oil and other resources since only
> thing Japan has is ocean water, rocks, and seafood.
Many of their attacks were to capture areas of raw matériels. But what does
this have to do with rest of the post?
[color=darkred]
| |
| no spam 2007-06-20, 1:25 pm |
| >>>>>>>Seems like you should pay less, if your fuel doesn't come from Iraq.
>
> Now, now, you *know* that other countries have contributed to maintaining
> world peace. To claim we had 'very little support' is just silly. Maybe
> you need to study your history some more.
Very little in percentage of their GNP and/or troops and equipment supplied.
How many other countries can you name which sent large numbers of its troops
around the world to oppose the USSR and/or China? The UK is the only one
that pops into my mind.
What other countries have a navy large enough to do more than protect their
own shores? Again the UK is the only one I can think of.
From 1950 to 1980 the US spent from a high of 14.3% (1953) to a low of 4.6%
(1979) [http://www.truthandpolitics.org/mil...lative-size.php] Got
any info on other countries?
| |
| GeekBoy 2007-06-20, 1:25 pm |
|
"no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:Nu9ei.35712$G23.30626@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>
> Many of their attacks were to capture areas of raw matériels. But what
> does this have to do with rest of the post?
1+1 =
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| GeekBoy 2007-06-20, 1:25 pm |
|
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f5aq2e$k8q@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>
> We all do, in my opinion. Oil would cost a lot more if
> oil companies paid the entire cost of acquiring it.
> What was the cost of the Afghanistan pipeline?
>
> Nick
>
Actually, on CSPAN yesterday, according to some Senators a tax incentive
that was created to get Big Oil to do more domestic exploration and drilling
had a reverse effect and the amount since it passed some 4 years ago when it
was created had dropped. They also indicated the price of gasoline has gone
up since then along with record breaking profits.
With the new energy bill they introduced an amendment to remove that tax
incentive.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-20, 1:25 pm |
| >>>>>>> Tom Doggett calculates the total cost of a gallon
>
> 1+1 =
Ok, so who is Japan invading today to get their oil? When did they start
another war. And what about Germany, the last time I check they didn't have
any national oil production. Are those pesky Germans at it again? I guess
there is another world war going on that I missed because very few countries
has the raw materials it needs inside its own boarders. Crap! I need to
get some money invested so I can become a profiteer.
Wait just a minute. . .they aren't invading other countries to get oil, they
get it from the world oil market which is there because of the free flow of
oil due to the US using its military power. I guess we should be charging
Japan a fee for the use of our troops.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-20, 1:25 pm |
| >>>... I don't subsidize any oil company with my taxes.
>
> Actually, on CSPAN yesterday, according to some Senators a tax incentive
> that was created to get Big Oil to do more domestic exploration and
> drilling had a reverse effect and the amount since it passed some 4 years
> ago when it was created had dropped. They also indicated the price of
> gasoline has gone up since then along with record breaking profits.
>
> With the new energy bill they introduced an amendment to remove that tax
> incentive.
Hey, we all remember how well the 'windfall profit' and 'luxury' tax worked
and how they stimulated the economy.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-20, 1:25 pm |
| >> What was the cost of the Afghanistan pipeline?
I've read the direct cost is about $1 billion, plus about $1 billion
a month in US income taxes over the last few years, which amounts to
a 98% Unocal subsidy.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|