State punishes man for using alternative energy - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

State punishes man for using alternative energy

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:41 am

This is being taken far past the extreme with the analogies here. :-b

Fact is, the gentleman, though most likely not intending or knowingly breaking an rules, produced and used a fuel. By government regulations, the burning of a fuel to transport your vehicle on government roads must be taxed.

I don't understand why they handled this the way they did and we're probably not getting the full story, but it's not as clean cut as everyone is making it out to be.

Flame away. !+)
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 11420
(Past Year: 6)
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

Postby RugbyD » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:50 am

Omaha Red Sox wrote:This is being taken far past the extreme with the analogies here. :-b

Fact is, the gentleman, though most likely not intending or knowingly breaking an rules, produced and used a fuel. By government regulations, the burning of a fuel to transport your vehicle on government roads must be taxed.

I don't understand why they handled this the way they did and we're probably not getting the full story, but it's not as clean cut as everyone is making it out to be.

Flame away. !+)

if a gas station had a free gas day, would customers be required to pay the usual taxes? No. Since every day is free oil day for this guy, why should he?
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:33 am

RugbyD wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:This is being taken far past the extreme with the analogies here. :-b

Fact is, the gentleman, though most likely not intending or knowingly breaking an rules, produced and used a fuel. By government regulations, the burning of a fuel to transport your vehicle on government roads must be taxed.

I don't understand why they handled this the way they did and we're probably not getting the full story, but it's not as clean cut as everyone is making it out to be.

Flame away. !+)

if a gas station had a free gas day, would customers be required to pay the usual taxes? No. Since every day is free oil day for this guy, why should he?


No, but the station would.

Fact of the matter is, this gentleman was producing, using, and possibly distributing a fuel. I agree that the situation was handled horribly and don't understand why it was taken to that extreme, but my point remains that this man is no exception to the rule. And I still contend that we're not getting the full story here.

I'm very supportive of experimenting with biodiesels. My company and myself make an awful lot of money selling methanol and glycerine for this very reason. Should these companies be exempt as well since they're not paying for gas the way you and I do? Of course not. They are producing and distributing a fuel. And the law states that there is a tax on fuel. No matter the size of the producer.

Was it handled well or even reasonable? No. Should this man pay the $4 a month to continue producing this fuel? Yes.

For the record, the government and oil companies do not fear biodiesel companies and producers. There is more than enough oil to keep them rich. They just don't want the populace to know that. This is the reason why oil will not be replaced as the main source of fuel in the world anytime soon. Because it's versatile and economical and there's more than enough for the world to use. Is it harmful on the environment? Certainly, but this is not an oil problem, this is a population problem. And, of course, this problem isn't going away anytime soon. Anytime an oil refinery goes up in flames gas prices increase. It's smoke and mirrors believe me. They're fine. But they make a killing raising the prices when their customers think there's a slight shortage. For the record I don't pay for my gas and when gas prices go up, so does my bonus. Does that mean I want gas prices to remain high? Of course not. I'm not a selfish or greedy man. I don't desire for the country to pay through the nose just so I can buy an addition for the house. We contributed mightily to Exxon's fortune last year and we're contributing even more this year so I understand, to some extent, the monetary factors that are involved.

Again, we desperately need to continue researching alternative fuels, but these environmentally conscious folks are not excluded from the taxes that the greedy oil companies are.
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 11420
(Past Year: 6)
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

Postby Coppermine » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:55 am

Omaha Red Sox wrote:Again, we desperately need to continue researching alternative fuels, but these environmentally conscious folks are not excluded from the taxes that the greedy oil companies are.


Just to chime in, and I haven't read through everything so forgive me if I'm being repetitive, but I agree with this statement from Omaha. The term fuel is used to imply anything that makes your car run and it is taxable. The problem as I see it are antiquated, misinterpreted and nonexistent laws for taxing this type of fuel.

I think that if the government wants to tax this type of fuel, then it needs to get its legislators moving toward enacting laws that specifically address organic and bio fuel consumption. As of right now, people who fill their cars up with bio fuels get a huge tax break in the form of a subsidy. If you fill your car up with ethanol or even grease that you pay for from a distributor of that type of fuel, that fuel is subsidized by as much as $1.00/gallon. That means the government is actually losing money for you to fill up with environmentally friendly fuels.

I think that's a good idea because it's the only way that alternative fuels can be competitive right now with the long-established and highly-profitable oil companies. I mean, no matter how you feel about the environment and wasteful consumerism, you have to admit that our dependence on foreign oil is a huge liability. If the premise of this discussion is that the government should be encouraging the use of alternative fuels, then I agree whole-heartedly. But if they want to tax someone for it, then they need to come up with less ambiguous tax code to do it.
Last edited by Coppermine on Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby knapplc » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:57 am

Omaha Red Sox wrote: For the record, the government and oil companies do not fear biodiesel companies and producers. There is more than enough oil to keep them rich. They just don't want the populace to know that. This is the reason why oil will not be replaced as the main source of fuel in the world anytime soon. Because it's versatile and economical and there's more than enough for the world to use. Is it harmful on the environment? Certainly, but this is not an oil problem, this is a population problem. And, of course, this problem isn't going away anytime soon. Anytime an oil refinery goes up in flames gas prices increase. It's smoke and mirrors believe me. They're fine. But they make a killing raising the prices when their customers think there's a slight shortage. For the record I don't pay for my gas and when gas prices go up, so does my bonus. Does that mean I want gas prices to remain high? Of course not. I'm not a selfish or greedy man. I don't desire for the country to pay through the nose just so I can buy an addition for the house. We contributed mightily to Exxon's fortune last year and we're contributing even more this year so I understand, to some extent, the monetary factors that are involved.


When gas prices doubled in the past five years I think the bloom pretty much fell off the rose for most people. The average consumer may still be in the dark, but anyone who knows how to use Google knows that there is not a shortage of fuel oil, there hasn’t been a shortage of fuel oil in the past 20 years, and the manipulations of the market forcing us to pay through the nose for a product that is readily available are entirely artificial. This kind of thing could very easily sour the market for oil-fueled cars, and spur the growth of the electric car market.

Oil will NOT be the fuel of the future. Guaranteed. We will still need oil for plastics and such things, but it will be replaced as a fuel source for personal vehicles in my lifetime, and perhaps in the next 20 years.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7870
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby RugbyD » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:29 am

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:This is being taken far past the extreme with the analogies here. :-b

Fact is, the gentleman, though most likely not intending or knowingly breaking an rules, produced and used a fuel. By government regulations, the burning of a fuel to transport your vehicle on government roads must be taxed.

I don't understand why they handled this the way they did and we're probably not getting the full story, but it's not as clean cut as everyone is making it out to be.

Flame away. !+)

if a gas station had a free gas day, would customers be required to pay the usual taxes? No. Since every day is free oil day for this guy, why should he?


No, but the station would.

Fact of the matter is, this gentleman was producing, using, and possibly distributing a fuel. I agree that the situation was handled horribly and don't understand why it was taken to that extreme, but my point remains that this man is no exception to the rule. And I still contend that we're not getting the full story here.

I'm very supportive of experimenting with biodiesels. My company and myself make an awful lot of money selling methanol and glycerine for this very reason. Should these companies be exempt as well since they're not paying for gas the way you and I do? Of course not. They are producing and distributing a fuel. And the law states that there is a tax on fuel. No matter the size of the producer.

Was it handled well or even reasonable? No. Should this man pay the $4 a month to continue producing this fuel? Yes.

For the record, the government and oil companies do not fear biodiesel companies and producers. There is more than enough oil to keep them rich. They just don't want the populace to know that. This is the reason why oil will not be replaced as the main source of fuel in the world anytime soon. Because it's versatile and economical and there's more than enough for the world to use. Is it harmful on the environment? Certainly, but this is not an oil problem, this is a population problem. And, of course, this problem isn't going away anytime soon. Anytime an oil refinery goes up in flames gas prices increase. It's smoke and mirrors believe me. They're fine. But they make a killing raising the prices when their customers think there's a slight shortage. For the record I don't pay for my gas and when gas prices go up, so does my bonus. Does that mean I want gas prices to remain high? Of course not. I'm not a selfish or greedy man. I don't desire for the country to pay through the nose just so I can buy an addition for the house. We contributed mightily to Exxon's fortune last year and we're contributing even more this year so I understand, to some extent, the monetary factors that are involved.

Again, we desperately need to continue researching alternative fuels, but these environmentally conscious folks are not excluded from the taxes that the greedy oil companies are.

1) This guy is not a producer. He just goes and picks it up and dumps it in the tank.
2) He is not a distributor as far as I or the govt can tell thus far.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby acsguitar » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:33 am

Its ridiculous how hypocritical our government is
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:37 am

RugbyD wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:This is being taken far past the extreme with the analogies here. :-b

Fact is, the gentleman, though most likely not intending or knowingly breaking an rules, produced and used a fuel. By government regulations, the burning of a fuel to transport your vehicle on government roads must be taxed.

I don't understand why they handled this the way they did and we're probably not getting the full story, but it's not as clean cut as everyone is making it out to be.

Flame away. !+)

if a gas station had a free gas day, would customers be required to pay the usual taxes? No. Since every day is free oil day for this guy, why should he?


No, but the station would.

Fact of the matter is, this gentleman was producing, using, and possibly distributing a fuel. I agree that the situation was handled horribly and don't understand why it was taken to that extreme, but my point remains that this man is no exception to the rule. And I still contend that we're not getting the full story here.

I'm very supportive of experimenting with biodiesels. My company and myself make an awful lot of money selling methanol and glycerine for this very reason. Should these companies be exempt as well since they're not paying for gas the way you and I do? Of course not. They are producing and distributing a fuel. And the law states that there is a tax on fuel. No matter the size of the producer.

Was it handled well or even reasonable? No. Should this man pay the $4 a month to continue producing this fuel? Yes.

For the record, the government and oil companies do not fear biodiesel companies and producers. There is more than enough oil to keep them rich. They just don't want the populace to know that. This is the reason why oil will not be replaced as the main source of fuel in the world anytime soon. Because it's versatile and economical and there's more than enough for the world to use. Is it harmful on the environment? Certainly, but this is not an oil problem, this is a population problem. And, of course, this problem isn't going away anytime soon. Anytime an oil refinery goes up in flames gas prices increase. It's smoke and mirrors believe me. They're fine. But they make a killing raising the prices when their customers think there's a slight shortage. For the record I don't pay for my gas and when gas prices go up, so does my bonus. Does that mean I want gas prices to remain high? Of course not. I'm not a selfish or greedy man. I don't desire for the country to pay through the nose just so I can buy an addition for the house. We contributed mightily to Exxon's fortune last year and we're contributing even more this year so I understand, to some extent, the monetary factors that are involved.

Again, we desperately need to continue researching alternative fuels, but these environmentally conscious folks are not excluded from the taxes that the greedy oil companies are.

1) This guy is not a producer. He just goes and picks it up and dumps it in the tank.
2) He is not a distributor as far as I or the govt can tell thus far.


You can't run an engine simply off of bacon grease. He had to have some sort of production process in order to create this fuel. I don't know what the stipulations are that determine what classifies a producer, but by definition, he would be a producer.

Yeah, I said possibly distributing. Wasn't he showing this car off at enviroshows? While it did not specify in the article there is a chance that he could be distributing this fuel, even if in small quantities. Like you said, we don't know.
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 11420
(Past Year: 6)
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

Postby acsguitar » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:39 am

Image
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby knapplc » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:58 am

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:This is being taken far past the extreme with the analogies here. :-b

Fact is, the gentleman, though most likely not intending or knowingly breaking an rules, produced and used a fuel. By government regulations, the burning of a fuel to transport your vehicle on government roads must be taxed.

I don't understand why they handled this the way they did and we're probably not getting the full story, but it's not as clean cut as everyone is making it out to be.

Flame away. !+)

if a gas station had a free gas day, would customers be required to pay the usual taxes? No. Since every day is free oil day for this guy, why should he?


No, but the station would.

Fact of the matter is, this gentleman was producing, using, and possibly distributing a fuel. I agree that the situation was handled horribly and don't understand why it was taken to that extreme, but my point remains that this man is no exception to the rule. And I still contend that we're not getting the full story here.

I'm very supportive of experimenting with biodiesels. My company and myself make an awful lot of money selling methanol and glycerine for this very reason. Should these companies be exempt as well since they're not paying for gas the way you and I do? Of course not. They are producing and distributing a fuel. And the law states that there is a tax on fuel. No matter the size of the producer.

Was it handled well or even reasonable? No. Should this man pay the $4 a month to continue producing this fuel? Yes.

For the record, the government and oil companies do not fear biodiesel companies and producers. There is more than enough oil to keep them rich. They just don't want the populace to know that. This is the reason why oil will not be replaced as the main source of fuel in the world anytime soon. Because it's versatile and economical and there's more than enough for the world to use. Is it harmful on the environment? Certainly, but this is not an oil problem, this is a population problem. And, of course, this problem isn't going away anytime soon. Anytime an oil refinery goes up in flames gas prices increase. It's smoke and mirrors believe me. They're fine. But they make a killing raising the prices when their customers think there's a slight shortage. For the record I don't pay for my gas and when gas prices go up, so does my bonus. Does that mean I want gas prices to remain high? Of course not. I'm not a selfish or greedy man. I don't desire for the country to pay through the nose just so I can buy an addition for the house. We contributed mightily to Exxon's fortune last year and we're contributing even more this year so I understand, to some extent, the monetary factors that are involved.

Again, we desperately need to continue researching alternative fuels, but these environmentally conscious folks are not excluded from the taxes that the greedy oil companies are.

1) This guy is not a producer. He just goes and picks it up and dumps it in the tank.
2) He is not a distributor as far as I or the govt can tell thus far.


You can't run an engine simply off of bacon grease. He had to have some sort of production process in order to create this fuel. I don't know what the stipulations are that determine what classifies a producer, but by definition, he would be a producer.

Yeah, I said possibly distributing. Wasn't he showing this car off at enviroshows? While it did not specify in the article there is a chance that he could be distributing this fuel, even if in small quantities. Like you said, we don't know.


YOU don't know. You're taking a lot on assumption here, and more than most I think. Based on what we KNOW from the articles, this guy is not a distributer, and is not subject to those taxes. If you have other info then show us and we'll talk. He makes his fuel from the raw ingredients (there's a brief description of the process here), so he is probably subject to those taxes.

But really, the tax issue is secondary to the METHOD the government used to come after this guy. You seem to be ignoring the fact that he was threatened using coercive tactics by the government. That is inexcusable!

It's not the taxes that he has to pay, it's the abuse of power that really irks me.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7870
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 22
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Baltimore at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Houston at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
St. Louis at Philadelphia
(7:05 pm)
San Francisco at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Tampa Bay at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Atlanta at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Seattle at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Kansas City at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Pittsburgh at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
Detroit at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Miami at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
San Diego at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
LA Angels at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
NY Mets at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact