They're not excessive - they're more in line with true cost of car dependent society. In the US we shower subsidies on car owners. Some examples: using general fund money to build highways, charging low gas taxes that don't cover cost of maintenance of roads, providing free/underpriced parking in every downtown in the US, undercharging for pollution and other negative externalities of driving, requiring minimum amounts of parking in new developments (instead of capping parking quantity or letting developer choose how much to provide), qualifying infrastructure using car centric metrics like Level-of-Service, federal gov't providing automatic 10-to-1 match for highway projects but 1-to-1 (in good cases) for transit projects to name a few

> using general fund money to build highways

You're forgetting about trucks (and other service vehicles), and though trains are better, you can't have trains everywhere

> providing free/underpriced parking in every downtown in the US

Downtown is predominantly paid parking, and not underpriced either

Many highways could have fewer lanes if there weren't so many commuters taking space away from trucks, etc.

> Downtown is predominantly paid parking, and not underpriced either

Yes but the vast majority of American cars don't park in downtown.

The message he was replying to included this:

> underpriced parking in every downtown

>They're not excessive - they're more in line with true cost of car dependent society.

How did you come by that result? Assuming it wasn't from a magic hat, could you enlighten us a bit?

Bear in mind, that drivers pay much, much more tax for their fuel in Denmark, too, compared to the U.S. Fuel taxes are a major part of many European countries tax income.

I think you should be supporting taxing car usage, not car ownership. 500% gasoline tax instead of 100% car tax.

I thinks is not the best solution, as taxing gasoline will rise the price of all products that must be transported. Like your food from farms to supermarket.

You could have a rebate system for 4/5th of the tax for professional users.

Aside from the question of fairness, it has driven Copenhagen to have more bicycles than cars on the streets, and massive improvements to bicycle-friendliness of streets to accommodate this. It's surely an improvement from a congestion, pollution and population health/fitness standpoint.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/nov/30/cycling-revol...

dane here: this tax is infuriatingly unfair; the fact is that most politicians in Denmark live in Copenhagen where it might be practical to rely on bicycles and public transport but for the mainland this is a fantasy. There is no usuable public transport and bicyling isn't practical beyond 10 km. The people this hurt aren't living in Copenhagen.

>I'm assuming most normal people are unable to afford a car then

They can actually. A new "normal" car would probably range between 60,000-150,000 DKK ($9,600-$24,000), but you could easily get an old used car for around 13,000-20,000 DKK ($2,000-$3,200).

Now don't get me wrong, I certainly am not happy with the fact that we have to pay that much extra, but it is not a problem unless you want a really fancy car. For what it is worth, Danish salaries are quite competitive for normally low paying jobs. Take for example flipping burgers at McDonald's full time, would be around $19/hour, around $2,700/month (before tax[0]). Or when I was younger I worked at a gas station night shift for around $3,500/month.

>The same applies to alcohol etc. Let people be free to decide and do what they want to do.

Heh, funny you should bring that one up—Denmark is waaaay more lax with alcohol than the US, and even its neighbour countries, Norway and Sweden.

[0] Tax calculation would go roughly (all in DKK):

- 17,000 (salary) - 5,400 (tax-free) = 11,600 (taxable)

- 11,600 - (11,600 * 0.38 (normal tax)) = 7,192 (after normal tax)

- 7,192 - (7,192 * 0.08 ("work" tax)) = 6,616 (after ~all taxes)

- 6,616 + 5,400 (the tax free) = 12,016 (final payed out salary)

EDIT: As an addendum I should probably add that the public transportation system works really well in Denmark, and if you live in the city, you don't need a car, you'd either go by train/metro/bus or bike.

"Really well" in the big cities only. Outside the top ten, it's useless. I've lived in a handful of cities in Denmark for about 20 years and this view of public transport is a typical eastern bias.

> I've lived in a handful of cities in Denmark for about 20 years and this view of public transport is a typical eastern bias

I'm not sure what you mean by eastern bias? I've lived in Denmark for 24 years, and South Korea 1 year, along with traveled a lot of the world. Denmark has a top-class transportation system, one that doesn't close around 24:00 (like Japan), and one that is still affordable.

> Outside the top ten, it's useless

Well, if you go below top 10, then you have cities with less than 50k citizens, compared to 1.3 million in Copenhagen, and then 270k in Aarhus (the 2nd biggest city).

I'll agree the transportation doesn't get you everywhere like they do in the bigger cities, but they can still get you around.

I don't think it's fair to expect a whole country to be completely interconnected, and you have like half the population living in the top 10 cities.

So basically just about anyone who doesn't want to spend anything in excess of 30k euros (15k for your average car + 15k on tax) on a car will either get an used car or a new Dacia.

If 180% is excessive, then Singapore begs to disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki51vh6ihJs

Anyway, I don't think it's a ban. There are literally cars in Singapore :) If you think a regular sedan is worth >$100k (it's normal in Singapore), you can buy it. But make sure you pay for the externalities (traffic, pollution, parking, road-building, ...) that is caused by your choice.

It depends on where you live, but things like infrastructure are almost supposed to be paid for by drivers in the form of fuel excise taxes[0] or paying road tolls. Paying for parking isn't uncommon either. I agree that pollution is something that needs to be addressed, though.

If taxes on cars were to increase for infrastructure, it would feel like the government is double dipping. Not to mention the general benefit in infrastructure for society as a whole. The benefits for economy can't be understated, not to mention the increased taxes you get across the board.

It's actually quite uncommon to see free government-owned parking lots where I live and when you do see it it's usually a loss leader to encourage people to visit local retailers (where the government will make its money back through sales taxes, income taxes, fuel taxes, encouraging jobs so unemployment, etc).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Australia

Interesting that taxes are tied in that way. Here in the UK (and much of Europe I believe?) all tax goes into a central pot, which is then shared out, to remove the direct relationship.

There are a couple of exceptions like cigarette taxes and I now believe some of the emissions tax all vehicles pay has been ear marked for roads - though I'm not a fan of this (and a cyclist) as it leads to the feeling that car drivers 'own' that road as they 'pay' for it.

> it would feel like the government is double dipping.

Remember, the side effect of this policy is that car ownership rate becomes really low. I doubt the purpose is to increase revenue. Maybe it's more about minimizing the negative externalities.

Singapore is an overbuilt island city, to some greater extent than Hong Kong, not a country with rural areas.

Dane here. Most people can adford a car if they want one. Normalt you get a loan and pay a monthly rate over the lifetime of the car. Most people who don’t need a car however would rather save the money and use public transport or bike around. I bought a car at the inflated prices, an I wouldn’t want them lowered. I do however feel that the lower fees for electric vehicles was a good thing.

Dane here: what's the population where you live? In most of the country (by area), isn't an accurate statement that you don't need a car.

From what I observed during the time I lived in Aalborg was that families with two incomes could easily afford one car and of course for families with kids a car is very much a necessity than a luxury. While recent young graduates and immigrants could not afford a car without burning a big hole in their income.

So pretty similar to here in the UK

Personally I'm sad to see this lowered as I think it set up good incentives.

High taxation in general, plus high car taxation, means that taxes will be allocated towards alternative transportation options. In Denmark this has meant bicycle infrastructure and culture which has been shown to make humans both happier and healthier. Not to mention that older cars means a lighter touch on the earth (heavy metals, fuel, etc).

Taxation is a good way to apply pressure, and I think we often overlook the power that high taxation has for good policy. Instead we get lower taxation and 'let the market decide' which often results in a more wealth inequality and worse pollution among other things.

"Not to mention that older cars means a lighter touch on the earth (heavy metals, fuel, etc)."

??? older cars doesn't mean a lighter touch on earth in relation to fuel, they can generally drive a shorter distance on the same amount of fuel and likely also have worse filters

Producing more cars obviously uses resources.

Looking at EPA numbers fuel economy improvements in recent years seems to have been minuscule. From 2007 to 2017 the Corolla went from 31mpg to 30, the Focus went from 27mpg to 28, the Highlander saw zero change at 22mpg.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=23549 https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/38152.shtml

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22758.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/38473.shtml

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/23765.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/38414.shtml

Unless it's doing a lot of miles, energy cost of building new car > energy use difference between new and old.

I am a car nut, and I'm happy to live in the US where I can afford fun cars that I would not be able to afford in other places.

However, I also see quite a bit of logic in this. It increases not just the COST of a car, but the value as well. Now your car doesn't depreciate as fast, which makes repairs seem more reasonable. The resale value is higher. People buy more used cars, repair them, and keep them on the road. In the end, the "cost" of just throwing a car on the scrap heap (okay, dismantling and scavanging for parts/melting down metal, etc) is much higher.

There are really some great consequences to this.

It's not really a ban, although it does price out some from the market. Practically anyone who has a steady job could still afford a car (edit: even a new one I mean), although many choose not to, because it's not worth it for them.

Those who buy cars essentially buy cheaper cars for the same prices compared to the neighbouring countries with similar income levels.

Yes, I wouldn't one a tax policy like that, either. Where I live, we still have a car excise tax, although somewhat more reasonable, and I oppose to that too: taxing safety features for instance makes people buy less safe cars on average. In any case, road users pay their fair share in fuel taxes (which are high practically everywhere in Europe), not to mention the recurring car owner's tax. (Some car-opposing people from the U.S. tend not to understand how much taxes car owners pay in Europe, but it really covers all the externalities of providing service for cars, and then some; it's a cash cow for the tax man. Of course, you need to collect taxes somewhere...)

I obviously don't know where you live, but it sounds crazy to people in the US because in most of the US public transportation an bicycle infrastructure is not where it needs to be to make them viable for daily life. In places where public transportation is better (like say NYC), car ownership is the exception rather than the rule.

The reality is cars have a massive public cost that we all subsidize via various taxes and paying higher prices for goods already. Keeping up roads, traffic signals, parking structures, etc. is very expensive. Higher taxes on vehicles (and/or gas) helps put the cost directly where it belongs.

Obviously instantly going to 100% tax on vehicles in most of the US would be a complete disaster right now because of the above lack of public transportation, etc. but it's not a crazy idea if you give people alternate means to get around and structure your cities so that 1 hour (or longer) commutes via car are not the norm.

> so that 1 hour (or longer) commutes via car are not the norm.

Is this really the norm in the states? Is this just home -> work route or does it include dropping off kids, shopping,...? Genuinly curious...

I have a 15 minute commute, but I'm atypical. One of the patterns that grew in (as I understand it) the 1940s and 1950s was the tendency to work in the city, but have a home farther out in the suburbs.

Apparently, the average commute time is 25.4 minutes, according to the US Census Bureau (although it gets much higher in some places): https://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html#5.00/42...

It takes me 40 minutes one way to get to/from work, more if the traffic sucks. The US is spread out, not having a car is not an option for a majority of our society (outside of high population density cities).

It is pretty normal in some parts. Not everywhere. But in the Midwest it’s very common for people to live out in the suburbs and have a long freeway drive in to work. I went 45 minutes each way for years.

You aren't considering the context, such as infrastructure costs, environmental costs, etc.

See Chesterton's fence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...

Normal people are definitely able to afford a car. Maybe not a car as nice as if they lived elsewhere, though.

The number of cars per capita may be the lowest in Western Europe but it is not so far from the UK figures, for example: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

I don't really see a problem with using taxation as a mechanism to encourage behavior while still allowing a market for it. Alcohol has a lot of negative impacts for society, so making it a luxury is probably a net good. I think the arguments around cars are a little more nuanced, but if a country decides it wants to encourage public transit & walkability, that seems like a fine goal.

For one problem it's a regressive tax, unless they carve out means based exceptions that means it puts transit for some rural people out of reach.

Exactly this. And they didn't compensate, which makes this very biased and unfair.

Many countries are similarly bad, yet still have cars; Singapore and Hong Kong for example, which are otherwise libertarian paradises. They tend to have excellent public transportation, however.

There are also still cars in Denmark (no problem seeing them when I visited Aarhus), just not as many as in the states.

The thing is - 100% tax on cars is libertarian. You charge car owners something closer to the costs they cause to society. Compare that to the USA where we heavily subsidize car ownership.

Government intervening in the market to internalize externalities is not libertarian. At least, not by the definitions used by any self-identified libertarians I've encountered.

The libertarian approach is to privatize recovery of social costs so that instead of government internalizing the aggregated social cost into the transaction, each individual who can demonstrate an unlicensed adverse impact from the transaction has a personal cause of action to recover damages resulting therefrom.

A particularly generous libertarian might recognize a class action as an appropriate mass venue for aggregating such claims.

So if I have asthma I can sue all drivers who drove in the area where I grew up and all coal plants operating in the area where I grew up for contributing to the development of my asthma with each one paying a few cents? That sounds insane.

And... we are back to no-true-liberatarian.

In a libertarian utopia governments are not supposed to add taxes to neutralize negative externalities.

I think fuel taxes, market rate parking fees and road/congestion tolling would be more libertarian. If you live in a rural area the impact of your vehicle is much different than if you live in the middle of a dense city.

Also, a $50,000 car does not have double the societal impact as a $25,000 car (which could be larger and less fuel efficient). Progressive taxes aren't a very libertarian construct.

> Singapore and Hong Kong for example, which are otherwise libertarian paradises.

Wait, what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/hong-kongs-bus...

Half of Hong Kong's population lives in public housing, as does 82% of Singapore's population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

Which probably reflects that people are more willing to be exposed to market fluctuations when their basic necessities are met by the state.

If they didn't do that, everyone who wasn't rich would be forced out of those cities, or would have to live with their parents and not have any kids (in Singapore's case). It has more to do with the unregulated market that public housing was necessary (and in Singapore, it really isn't the public housing you are used to).

"Basic necessities are met by the state" and "most people live in public housing" are pretty antithetical to libertarianism, aren't they?

Economic freedom is very underrated compared freedom of political expression. There are many ways in which Singaporeans are much more free than we are.

Economic freedom (which I'm presuming means "lower taxes"?) isn't much use to you if you're executed for possessing drugs, or indefinitely detained without charge, need a permit to assemble, can't criticize the government, etc.

> if you're executed for possessing drugs, or indefinitely detained without charge, need a permit to assemble, can't criticize the government, etc.

Erm, all those things(+) can, and do, happen in 'free' countries. They're just not officially sanctioned and are reported differently. If you were to look at this objectively (without depending on just the official figures) I'd say per capita, human rights abuse / exploitation is worse in the US than Singapore.

(+) and worse, eg: get executed for being the wrong color at the wrong time and place

OK... but I never claimed the US to be a "libertarian paradise", either. Neither the US nor Singapore could be, by any stretch of imagination, accurately deemed "libertarian paradises".

>> libertarian paradises

Probably he/she meant to type authoritarian paradise ;)

People drive. A lot. It’s just widely accepted that this is what a car costs.

The main problem I see with a high tax is that people might circumvent it (illegal imports etc).

An interesting effect of these high taxes is that you can very “cheaply” subsidize EVs now. It’s lost revenue so it’s still a cost - but it’s easier to swallow and administer.

Just tax them at 10% instead of 100% and a Tesla Model S is immediately competitive with all the boring ICE vehicles. Look at how Tesla is the most sold car in Norway.

> People drive. A lot. It’s just widely accepted that this is what a car costs.

I think this is a key difference between Denmark and USA. Here in USA drivers don't think they're being subsidized. A common argument against transit is that each ticket is subsidized.

There's a highway that just opened in Virginia where they increase the toll to the point where traffic flows at 45MPH. The highest toll on day 2 was $40(!!). This gives you an idea of the value of what is typically given away for free.

A side note in the article is the collapse of electric vehicle sales in Norway.

'...the current administration had decided to phase out tax breaks on electric cars, citing budget constraints and the desire to level the playing field. That decision was delayed in June amid a dramatic drop in sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (ECVs)'.

ECV sales have relied very heavily on subsidy in most of the western world, it will be interesting to see demand when competing on a level playing field with ICE vehicles

EVs will sell just fine without subsidy once prices for long-range ones reaches parity with ICEs. I’m willing to pay a premium to drive an EV but perhaps 10% or so, not more. If subsidies are removed too soon, sales (increases) will flatten. A good reason for subsidizing heavily early on is to get critical mass in infrastructure with chargers etc.

Collapse of EV sales in Norway? Quick, someone needs to call Tesla about that..

https://electrek.co/2017/12/19/tesla-breaks-new-records-norw...

That's paywalled for me. However going by the title, that's old news as the tax was shot down at the end of the year.

https://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/statsbudsjettet-2018/tesla-...

EU may enforce VAT on the cars, time will tell:

https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/politikk/i/nkkxd/Ap-vil-ha-...

We'll see how that goes. Fun fact: Norwegians don't like EU telling them what to do. (I'm a Norwegian, moved to Australia nearly 2 decades ago).

They re not sure when to reduce the tax but sales have gone down anyway, probably in anticipation of changes

'Norway has been hugely successful in introducing electric cars and aims to sell only zero-emission new vehicles by 2025. But critics argue that their popularity is mostly down to an extremely generous set of subsidies that can cut the price of the most expensive Teslas by about NKr450,000.

When and how to withdraw those subsidies has sparked a huge political debate. Some Norwegian politicians point out that many of the early adopters of electric cars were rich households buying Teslas. Bus drivers in the richest parts of Oslo complain that bus lanes are clogged with electric cars, which are permitted to use them'.

Uhm, it is not exactly subsidies in Norway, but a reduction in a very high tax for EVs, making them comparatively more affordable than ICEs.

Yep. EVs are both exempt of MVA (GST/VAT) tax and registration fee, whereas combustion engines vehicles (CVs?) are most definitely not. Thus EVs are thus cheap or at least affordable by function of contrast.

People can still drive, though. Are you against taxes in general?

People tend to buy cars with loans or with monthly payments