sigh...

WASHINGTON — When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law. But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html

If the companies think that it is cheaper to pay the fines than commercialise the product, that is their decision. The government can only encourage investment in biofuels, it cannot force the companies. Maybe it needs a bigger stick to encourage them harder. The "companies that supply motor fuel" are scarcely low-tech 'mom & pop' outfits. And let's face it - if they cannot lobby their way out of this, then it says a lot about the integrity of government

SC

I agree with SC. Also, those US$ 6.8 probably came from the petty cash.

I agree with SC. Also, those US$ 6.8 probably came from the petty cash.

Maybe, but that petty cash is refilled by the consumer through price increases to cover the fine in the first place.

So it's OK to fine anyone for not using something that doesn't exist and if they don't want to get fined for it then it is up to them to go out and invent it? That seems OK, why? Because the people being fined have money?

I agree with SC. Also, those US$ 6.8 probably came from the petty cash.

Maybe, but that petty cash is refilled by the consumer through price increases to cover the fine in the first place.

So it's OK to fine anyone for not using something that doesn't exist and if they don't want to get fined for it then it is up to them to go out and invent it? That seems OK, why? Because the people being fined have money?

Whether you call it a fine or a new tax, it's going into the government coffers, and they will build roads and schools from that money.

And yes, people who have money should be taxed. This includes corporations who through questionable but usually legal systems often don't pay much tax. Note the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is legal, the other one isn't, but the effect is the same.

I agree with SC. Also, those US$ 6.8 probably came from the petty cash.

Maybe, but that petty cash is refilled by the consumer through price increases to cover the fine in the first place.

So it's OK to fine anyone for not using something that doesn't exist and if they don't want to get fined for it then it is up to them to go out and invent it? That seems OK, why? Because the people being fined have money?

Whether you call it a fine or a new tax, it's going into the government coffers, and they will build roads and schools from that money.

And yes, people who have money should be taxed. This includes corporations who through questionable but usually legal systems often don't pay much tax. Note the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is legal, the other one isn't, but the effect is the same.

"Whether you call it a fine or a new tax, it's going into the government coffers, and they will build roads and schools from that money."

Obama's Christmas holiday vacation to Hawaii cost the US government over $4 million. Ain't no schools or roads being built by this government.