Omaha Red Sox wrote:This is being taken far past the extreme with the analogies here.
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.
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.
I agree with everyone else on that side of the discussion, but it seemed to me that many people were simply pissed about the guy having to pay taxes on the fuel. And I certainly did not ignore the irresponsible way the government went about handling this situation, even mentioned it a couple times earlier. But I felt that sentiment had been echoed enough so I chose to point out that the law is the law and while I encourage this man to keep doing what he is doing, I also encourage him to do it lawfully, which I think he is prepared to do as stated in the article.