3 ms·

You seem to agree that Denmark's vehicle taxation is remarkably high. Many people are reliant on having a vehicle, and one larger than a Polo, so their total ta

You seem to agree that Denmark's vehicle taxation is remarkably high. Many people are reliant on having a vehicle, and one larger than a Polo, so their total taxation is remarkably higher than in other countries based on this alone. You used the word "rightfully" as if it's a moral given that people in need of bigger vehicles should be taxed more. Vehicles aside, in Denmark, you have a gross tax of 8% in addition to payroll tax. You have municipal tax, a health contribution tax, etc. If you make more than DKK 479 600, you are taxed an additional 15%. This means you will be taxed around 50% on income tax alone. Then add the vehicle taxation, and VAT, etc. You can try to justify this massive taxation. Rationalize it, based on your political views. But it's not wrong to say that Danes are taxed even more than Norwegians. > Still, it's around 25-35% all-in. That's false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Denmark http://www.economist.com/node/21531016 http://www.economist.com/node/21531016 https://tradingeconomics.com/denmark/personal-income-tax-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/denmark/personal-income-tax-rat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe

fulafel 9y ago
Cars are a major cause of global warming, so there is a pressing need to curb their use. People don't inherently need cars (or big cars), we have to change our ways to drive less.
- erikbye 9y ago
  I won't really get into the politics of vehicles, but many people do need a car if they are to make a living, thinking otherwise is naive and unrealistic. For many, it is their living. Others need it for personal freedom, some people enjoy a road trip; others like to be able to visit friends and family. Perhaps some even use a vehicle to come take care of sick and elderly living in rural areas. People who don't live in cities need cars; public transportation is not widespread enough or flexible enough. Maybe you want to condemn everyone to live in cities? Or to not have big families, or to not produce goods where at one point those goods need to be transported to outlets by vehicle. The manufacturing of goods cause pollution as well, you don't want to have that production in urban areas and affect the health of those living there. Not all transportation can be done by other means, shipping, trains, etc. Goods have to get to stores. Sometime in the future, we will have more efficient means of delivery, at the very least all the vehicles delivering goods will be autonomous and electric, but for now, we're not there. In the case of Denmark, first off, their vehicles per capita is very low, and not because of taxation. Going after the few people who need their cars is punishing, kind of hypocritical as well, when you're at the same time burning coal. Second, Denmark's contribution to global warming is infinitesimal, let's focus on the United States and China who's the biggest polluters, by far. You don't cut the snake's tail.
  - fulafel 9y ago
    > I won't really get into the politics of vehicles, but many people do need a car if they are to make a living, thinking otherwise is naive and unrealistic. Like I said with "people don't inherently need cars", this line of thinking is anchored in the wrong thing. It's of course trivially true that many current jobs rely on cars, but we have to rapidly change that - otherwise much worse things than carlessness and change of job will happen to people and the ecosphere. Try s/cars/slaves/ in your text to see what I mean. Re coal - it is a logical fallacy to deny necessary improvement A because we have not made a tangential, equally necessary improvement B yet. Of course we have to stop burning coal as well. Re cities - history does know instances of people living outside cities before widespread private car ownership...
    - erikbye 9y ago
      > Like I said with "people don't inherently need cars", this line of thinking is anchored in the wrong thing. Inherent need as in without you die? No. But right now, for efficient (compared to walking) mobility outside of the public transportation infrastructure, we need vehicles. What is your suggestion for mobility outside cities, in a way that grants as much liberty, personal freedom as a car does? > Re coal - it is a logical fallacy to deny necessary improvement A because we have not made a tangential, equally necessary improvement B yet. Of course we have to stop burning coal as well. The logical fallacy is putting the cart before the horse. > Re cities - history does know instances of people living outside cities before widespread private car ownership... Your point being?
KozmoNau7 9y ago
Yes, the vehicle taxation is high. Should it have been set that high originally? Maybe, maybe not. But the simple fact is that it highly encourages people to buy cars that pollute less, and with the new rules, also cars with the best safety ratings. It also encourages people to keep their cars for longer, which is better for the environment (producing a new car uses a lot of energy). And yes, if you buy a bigger and more expensive car (which probably also gets worse gas mileage), you get taxed more, in absolute numbers. It's not a complicated concept. Overconsumers pay more, it's only fair. You seriously misunderstand the marginal tax rate. It is only applied to income above 479,600kr. Nobody pays even close to 50%. The ~40% in your link is on a 635,000kr/year income, which is rather high, includes marginal tax, and again is nowhere near the 50% you claim. It also doesn't take into account deductions for debt, charitable donations and other things, which help bring down the effective tax percentage. Your third link is highly misinformative, since it only looks at the marginal tax rate, which again is only applied to income above 479,600kr. If you make 480,000kr/year, the marginal tax rate is only applied to the last 400kr.
- erikbye 9y ago
  I still don't understand where you get 25-35% tax "all-in" from, as you wrote in a previous post. It seems if you're to make what's considered anything like a decent wage in this sector (tech) you will pay at least 40%, and the more you make the more you pay, hence progressive tax. Is this wrong?
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Most people pay around 35% or less, higher paid persons obviously pay a bit more. Literally no one pays 50%.

fulafel 9y ago

Cars are a major cause of global warming, so there is a pressing need to curb their use. People don't inherently need cars (or big cars), we have to change our ways to drive less.

erikbye 9y ago
I won't really get into the politics of vehicles, but many people do need a car if they are to make a living, thinking otherwise is naive and unrealistic. For many, it is their living. Others need it for personal freedom, some people enjoy a road trip; others like to be able to visit friends and family. Perhaps some even use a vehicle to come take care of sick and elderly living in rural areas. People who don't live in cities need cars; public transportation is not widespread enough or flexible enough. Maybe you want to condemn everyone to live in cities? Or to not have big families, or to not produce goods where at one point those goods need to be transported to outlets by vehicle. The manufacturing of goods cause pollution as well, you don't want to have that production in urban areas and affect the health of those living there. Not all transportation can be done by other means, shipping, trains, etc. Goods have to get to stores. Sometime in the future, we will have more efficient means of delivery, at the very least all the vehicles delivering goods will be autonomous and electric, but for now, we're not there. In the case of Denmark, first off, their vehicles per capita is very low, and not because of taxation. Going after the few people who need their cars is punishing, kind of hypocritical as well, when you're at the same time burning coal. Second, Denmark's contribution to global warming is infinitesimal, let's focus on the United States and China who's the biggest polluters, by far. You don't cut the snake's tail.
- fulafel 9y ago
  > I won't really get into the politics of vehicles, but many people do need a car if they are to make a living, thinking otherwise is naive and unrealistic. Like I said with "people don't inherently need cars", this line of thinking is anchored in the wrong thing. It's of course trivially true that many current jobs rely on cars, but we have to rapidly change that - otherwise much worse things than carlessness and change of job will happen to people and the ecosphere. Try s/cars/slaves/ in your text to see what I mean. Re coal - it is a logical fallacy to deny necessary improvement A because we have not made a tangential, equally necessary improvement B yet. Of course we have to stop burning coal as well. Re cities - history does know instances of people living outside cities before widespread private car ownership...
  - erikbye 9y ago
    > Like I said with "people don't inherently need cars", this line of thinking is anchored in the wrong thing. Inherent need as in without you die? No. But right now, for efficient (compared to walking) mobility outside of the public transportation infrastructure, we need vehicles. What is your suggestion for mobility outside cities, in a way that grants as much liberty, personal freedom as a car does? > Re coal - it is a logical fallacy to deny necessary improvement A because we have not made a tangential, equally necessary improvement B yet. Of course we have to stop burning coal as well. The logical fallacy is putting the cart before the horse. > Re cities - history does know instances of people living outside cities before widespread private car ownership... Your point being?

KozmoNau7 9y ago

Yes, the vehicle taxation is high. Should it have been set that high originally? Maybe, maybe not. But the simple fact is that it highly encourages people to buy cars that pollute less, and with the new rules, also cars with the best safety ratings. It also encourages people to keep their cars for longer, which is better for the environment (producing a new car uses a lot of energy). And yes, if you buy a bigger and more expensive car (which probably also gets worse gas mileage), you get taxed more, in absolute numbers. It's not a complicated concept. Overconsumers pay more, it's only fair. You seriously misunderstand the marginal tax rate. It is only applied to income above 479,600kr. Nobody pays even close to 50%. The ~40% in your link is on a 635,000kr/year income, which is rather high, includes marginal tax, and again is nowhere near the 50% you claim. It also doesn't take into account deductions for debt, charitable donations and other things, which help bring down the effective tax percentage. Your third link is highly misinformative, since it only looks at the marginal tax rate, which again is only applied to income above 479,600kr. If you make 480,000kr/year, the marginal tax rate is only applied to the last 400kr.

erikbye 9y ago
I still don't understand where you get 25-35% tax "all-in" from, as you wrote in a previous post. It seems if you're to make what's considered anything like a decent wage in this sector (tech) you will pay at least 40%, and the more you make the more you pay, hence progressive tax. Is this wrong?
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Most people pay around 35% or less, higher paid persons obviously pay a bit more. Literally no one pays 50%.