What’s an SUV though because the industry has a lot of cars they call SUVs and quite a lot and don’t look remotely like each other.

I have an SUV from 2015 and the Volvo XC90 dwarfs it despite it apparently not been an SUV, so how does that work?

I doubt it’d raise that much (the article states £1.72bn), as there seems to be an assumption increasing the tax wouldn’t lead to a reduction in SUVs, and that everyone would just absorb the cost.

However, I still say go ahead! Even if it only raises a quarter of that, that’s still money coming in, and it means fewer SUVs on our roads. That’s a win-win.

SUVs the jack of no trades and master of fewer. They’re such a strange concept, forgo the ease of a hatchback, the space of an estate, the performance of a sports car, the utility of a 4x4 and in return you get to kill more kids when you hit them.

I’m clearly not the target market with my '05 Civic that, because I live fairly rural, I put winter tires on. But, I don’t understand what I’m missing. The wealthier around me are all in them, the rest of us are in hatchbacks and estates.

Do it

More sloppy reporting from the guardian, at least proof read the work. Tax £66,610 on an £85,000 vehicle? 3 times as much as the cost in the uk of £3200? I think someone put another 0 on that, and they still managed to publish it.