See, now I take the opposite view.

Denmark may have some fairly onerous taxes, but that seems to be more than made up for by the quality of life, healthcare, education and so on. I have two good friends who moved from UK to Denmark, both high earners with families, neither would consider returning to the UK for a millisecond. As UK austerity continues and Brexit nears I'm thinking of it myself.

The USA's ridiculously high subsidy of petrol has struck me as crazy ever since my first visit in the 80s or 90s, and I rented a "standard" car that turned out to be as large as a small aircraft carrier. It handled like an aircraft carrier too.

Is a tax a subsidy if you personally find it too low?

I find it completely worthwhile "subsidizing" personal vehicles. Everything else just feels oppressive in comparison (barring scenarios like bicycling being faster than the gridlock in Manhattan). Quality of life seems much better to me not being forced into transit or having to bike everywhere, so it makes sense to me for the government to invest in it.

How big was that car you rented? Can you remember the make/model? I went from a tiny car I had to lower myself down to get into (98 Ford Escort ZX2) to a Jeep Grand Cherokee and the handling is just as good if not better and the ride is smoother all around. Feels much nicer having the extra space too, and not having to contort myself to get in.

Subsidizing personal vehicles sounds completely insane and irresponsible to me.

The problem is that everyone ends up with their own vehicle and this gridlocks any road in/out of a city. Which ~big city in the world does not have trafic problems? And what is the average passenger count in those cars. One bus can replace MANY cars. But for some reason i cannot comprehend taking the bus or train seems oppressive to some people. I get this is not an option everywhere but where i live it most definatly is and people still complain about the tolls drivers have to pay to commute into the city and refuse to take the bus/train.

Taking the light rail from Renton to Seattle costs twice as much (or more) than gasoline to drive there. And takes 3 times as long. Not including parking.

And the train doesn't run on Saturday nights, so if you want a fun night in the city, you're driving anyway.

> Is a tax a subsidy if you personally find it too low?

That could be an interesting discussion. In effect it could be.

On transportation, I'm more for having a level playing field, and discouraging polluters. More so since I've learnt of climate change. To give a UK example the government pays for roads, but not rails - that's a subsidy, yet most would agree the railways need more investment to increase capacity.

I'm happy discouraging individually polluting cars and promoting transport choices - buses, trams and trains, even if I have to pay a little more tax. I'd like to see investment to get more services, more routes, better timetables, adding cycle routes etc. Not just in London. More like the Netherlands for instance. As a car owner I have often taken a bus or train as the better choice thanks to not needing to find or pay parking or be able to have a night out and a few drinks. The UK can't just keep throwing more one occupant vehicles at our increasingly gridlocked roads.

I realise that can't work as easily in the US given how far you built everything around the car. It would take a lot of work to get back to balance or create viable and appealing transport that isn't seen as something you're forced into.

As to what car, at this point I have no memory other than it being a US only make (Chevy maybe), my first US trip was late 80s early 90s. It was referred to as "standard" size before we flew out. I brought UK expectations to that, where a hire would be compact (smaller than Ford Escort, probably a Ford Fiesta), standard would maybe be a BMW 3 series (of the 90s - everything keeps getting bigger!) or Toyota Corola, then large and luxury choices. What I got was something similar in style and size to a NYC cab as seen on so many movies but with a nicer interior. Turns out they're bloody enormous! Thankfully so are US parking spaces. :)

> 98 Ford Escort ZX2 to a Jeep Grand Cherokee and the handling is just as good if not better

Unless the Escort was broken this seems too rose tinted a view. Large SUVs like that may be comfortable but they definitely don't handle well.

What are some specific things that should feel different? Turning, merging, accelerating (especially with overdrive off) all feel great. Turning radius isn't bad at all. Only thing is you can't take tight corners super fast unless you want to flip over.

> Only thing is you can't take tight corners super fast unless you want to flip over.

This is what is usually called "handling". The other things you describe are driving comfort or something like that. "Handling" usually means the dynamic characteristics of the car that would make it fast around the turns in a track for example. The large mass at a high center of gravity makes all SUVs pretty bad at this.

FWIW, a Ford Escort is not a tiny car to anyone not from the US.

There are smaller around here, like those smart cars and a few other two door sedans, but it's definitely on the smaller end here. Probably average size for the UK from what I've heard?

In the whole nation of Denmark, 26% of all sub-5km trips are by bike.

In Portland, the US's most celebrated cycle city, 6.3% of commuter journeys are by bike.

It looks to me like Denmark has it right; and that taxing polluting vehicles (you know, there's this thing called climate change?) is perhaps a better strategy than sneeringly calling them "clown cars".

Also it means less congestion on the roads, because there are fewer cars.

If most middle class families can get by with just one car, maybe that's good for everyone.

Note. Today cheaper cars and high incoming means many families have two cars.

I wrote the comment you responded to. I live in Denmark, and here is my take on this.

It's not as extreme that I'd call it "extremist state of affairs". Fewer cars are for the greater good. However, what pisses me the most is how it is really implemented. There is the famous 150% tax when you buy a car, and then there is a green tax every 6 months/quarter that is based on how efficient &a safe your car is. I'm all for the green tax. Heck, double or triple it, and make the SUV drivers pay. But, the 150% tax IMO is lop sided policy. It lead to too many small cars(VW Up, Seat equivalent, and the like) because that's what common people can afford. Another side effect is that people tend to keep shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings in the wind(pun intended).

I think the law is made by politicians just based on life in Copenhagen, where you can use the trains and bike wherever. Public transportation is A-class, and you don't particularly need a car for the most part.

The rest of Denmark, where I live, public transport is not as good, and car becomes a necessity if you go to work outside the city. We're the collateral damage of the narrow minded policies.

/rant.

Denmark, as everyone here says is an excellent place to live, and I have a bigger list of positives to list, and a tiny list including this car tax to complain about.

>people tend to keep shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings

Keeping an older car rather than buying a new one is often the more environmentally sound decision, because it takes a very long time for improved efficiency to break even on the massive environmental investment of manufacturing the new car.

> It lead to too many small cars(VW Up, Seat equivalent, and the like) because that's what common people can afford

Slightly confused - what's the issue here? Small cars are good. They take up less street space and tend to be more economical. My wife owns a Fiat 500 (which is about as small as you get); it's much easier to park on the narrow streets of our rural town than a bigger car would be, its fuel consumption is stellar, and it's no bigger than we need.

Large cars are seen as status symbols, so a lot of people think they need a big car to show how successful they are, and to "keep up with the Joneses".

The sooner people shed this silly consumerism mindset, the better.

> Another side effect is that people tend to keep shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings in the wind(pun intended).

Here in Norway the car has to pass quite strict emission standards (EU kontroll) every 2 years or it will not be allowed on the road. I think you have the same thing as it's from EU. So the amount of old clunkers that pollute should be minimal, mostly limited to veteran cars (25+ years in Norway) which are exempt.

> they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings

Buying a new car for proportionally lower emissions is a false economy as much of the carbon footprint of a car is in its manufacture, not just its use. Holding onto older cars that aren't offensively inefficient (e.g. any small hatchback) seems environmentally responsible to me.

The carbon footprint of the manufacturing process is ~20% of the lifetime footprint for the car.

Agreed, the tax is not ideal. It's better than nothing..

But it would be even better if we somehow could tax households higher for their second car.

In practice it's probably an administrative nightmare with too many loopholes.

>I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/taxes/etc in Denmark is appropriate.

You will never understand it because those people have a completely different world view than you or I when it comes to taxation. You will also probably never understand a lot of other crazy things that people with different world views believe.

The idea that taxes and government involvement in everything should be the minimum possible is foreign to them in the same way that a woman is CEO of GM and that's not a problem to us is completely foreign to the Taliban.

Obviously it's a two way street and the idea that someone would want gas to cost $5/L and that someone might not be ok with a female CEO is equally foreign and impossible for us to relate to.

Up to a point. I'm Danish, and I should certainly like the state to gtf out of whole sectors of what it's currently busybodying around with. I have worked in the public sector here ('been employed by' is a more accurate term) - I've seen the waste and the iron law of bureaucracy at full mindless throttle. But you're right in the sense that I'm in a small minority here, and that most people have not a clue in the world what I'm even talking about.

I suppose one fairly effective way to reduce emissions is to crush the economy. But it does have some negative externalities.

I don't see why it's insane to put huge taxes on something that polutes our environment, is dangerous to people around them, causes a lot of noise and other irritations. Pushing more people towards electric and public transportation is only a good thing in my opinion. If you insist on a poluting private car, fine, just pay for it (big time).

I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/subsidies etc in the United States is appropriate. The rest of the world isn't that great either but the United States is one of or the most insane example (memory isn't clear on if there's another major country that's even worse). One of the things that makes me ashamed to live in the USA - owning and operating a car in a spectacularly wasteful way doesn't pay for its own externalities, even anything bigger than an efficient people-mover with any less than 50mpg.

On the environmental side keeping old cars longer actually makes sense. Because production of cars produces a lot of CO2.

But historically this was a trick to minimize the trade deficit, because we don't produce cars in Denmark.

Today, however, it's hard to get rid off this tax. Because you have to find the money, and as soon as you start talking about this tax people stop trading cars.

IMO, cars isn't where we need tax breaks it'll mean even more congestion in the roads. We need to invest the upcoming surpluses if you ask me.

Considering that Denmark in 30th in the world in the number of cars per capita, above France, the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands, doesn't seem that problematic.

>Europe isn't that great either but Denmark is one of or the most insane examples .... One of the things that makes me grateful to live in the USA - owning and operating a car doesn't bankrupt me

until you get into an accident severe enough to need extensive medical attention.

Besides health insurance, my legally bare minimim car insurance is mandated to have 20k or something of medical coverage.