Yes. What folks that champion less cars often include as an incentive is a punishment for using cars. That punishment would likely be a tax that would disproportionately affect folks in the countryside, so any benefits made for cities would need to scale there as well. The total amount of cars is a red herring, it's the importance of vehicles. The story of what happened in France was very telling.

That doesn't necessarily follow, though. Congestion pricing, for example, can penalise car use where it's causing the problems like traffic and where alternatives exist (assuming good public transport, cycling infrastructure, etc., which you need to make any of this work), but not where it's less avoidable and not causing the same kind of issues and alternatives aren't there, like in the countryside.

That is my point. Having the right taxes and the right stop gaps that scale is the imperative. The problem is that you're among a crowd (as am I) who, some portion of, just want to see rural areas fail. As a result, I do my part in reminding them who this will impact. As another commenter so gleefully put it, they're "economically and culturally unproductive". It's not my first time reading disgusting rhetoric like that when people talking about these kinds of solutions get asked how they plan on dealing with the rest of America.