This reminds me of a bumper sticker.... Don't steal. The government hates competition.

I think the logic is this, although I'm just guessing. Suppose everyone got cars that ran on vegetable oil, who'd pay for the highways and streets? I guess the government is just asserting it's authority now, so that in the future there's no question.

Yes, yes and yes. If you use it in a road vehicle, it is subject to road fuel tax (both state and federal, in addition to any applicable state sales tax if your state levies sales tax on motor fuel). If you bought your veg oil from Costco, you paid sales tax but not state or federal fuel tax.

Stuff is double and triple taxed all the time and it's perfectly legal. Try looking at any airport rental car contract and parse out the huge list of fees and taxes, for example.

ding ding ding!

Fuel tax is a use tax that pays for maintaining the roads and bridges. If you use those state/federal/local roads, you must pay for them with state/federal/local fuel taxes - and tolls too, in some places (another form of double taxation, if you're keeping score at home).

PS -

Gas Tax Rates By State

It's funny how such things are usually pointed out any time libertarian talking points are raised, but in this thread, people are bitching about how he has to pay taxes on a hip fuel.

Maybe we should abandon gas taxes and run on a sort of EZ Pass type system that measures road usage? Of course, privacy concerns galore, but it might be an equitable way to fund roads if self-service car refueling gains traction

The Fed subsidizes both oil and soy. All they're trying to do is recoup some of their losses so they can buy more bombs.

True. Even your ticket has an airport tax, sales tax, and most likely some other stupid ass tax.

And FreshPrince, I'm not sure why or if you were directing that at me. I think taxing for use is a good thing. Like I said, who would pay to maintain them otherwise?

You're EZ pass idea isn't that bad in theory. You could have your odometer checked once a year at a certified whatever and be taxed based on that, but I think I'd be too easy to get around that which would result in an overall loss of revenue--me thinks. I think taxing the actual fuel source is this best thing, 'cause in the end there's no way to "get around" putting fuel in your vehicle.

Also... in this case though. I think they should give the guy a break. If I had modified my vehicle, it wouldn't even have occurred to me to send a tax payment in. And where the hell would you send it to anyway? That'd be a fun experiment. Call your local government and try ask where you're supposed to send your vegetable oil tax. "Your what?" "My vegetable oil tax" "Why are you paying a vegetable oil tax?" "My car runs on it" "Your car runs on vegetable oil?" "Yeah" "I dunno, call the DMV" DMV "I dunno, call the..." etc... etc...etc... I mean nobody else sends in their tax for car fuel independently. I suppose Costco should start selling blue dyed Vegetable Oil specifically for cars...

No, just more or less reinforcing what you said

I know they already require semi-drivers to reimburse taxes for mileage by state, so they might jut be more prepared than you would expect.

I stand corrected. I still don't think they should come down so hard on this guy. Just say, look in the future we need you to send in your tax or tax him based on what he's bought already. I don't see the need to penalize him.

I get the logic, I just wasn't sure about the legal details.

It would be interesting to see how the fuel tax would adapt to future hybrid cars, like hydrogen/electric.

Flawed comparison; he's using diesel, not gas. If you read the article, you'd note that he's actually paying more for his veggie-diesel than he would for regular diesel.

I don't see why people are so angry about this. Seems pretty reasonable to me that if there is a fuel tax you pay it on all fuel regardless of if you make it yourself, in fact i was planning on getting a car that runs on biodiesel and i already knew I had to pay tax on the fuel I make. We do need more renewable fuel but like the article says the road construction is paid for by the fuel tax. If you want to argue they are spending too much on road construction so the tax can be lowered then that is reasonable but saying he shouldn't pay any tax means less money for the presumably needed road construction. I also think the idea of a fuel tax being used for road construction is a good idea since it directly taxes people on the proportion they use the roads. Well that is if you don't use the fuel for a generator or something similar.

I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't get the logic I was just trying to clarify.

As far as the second part goes I could see an electrical line being designated as for car only which could be read as separate energy usage from electricity being used for others. The company could pay the tax and then charge you cost. Or something...

1. You don't need to modify a diesel engine for this, do you? What I've read says no.
2. How do you get caught doing this?
3. How would they know how much to tax? Can't randomly tax.
4. The whole "dependence on Middle East oil" is total bullshit. It has nothing to do with this story, but people never get tired of repeating this lie over and over. Wonder why?

Can't seem to edit that post for the link, sorry. Here it is.