The World Cup was on and two things happened. Before I knew it I'd missed the deadline. My budgie was sick. He chewed on the only pen I had in the house and he died of ink poison. I didn't have anything to put him in for his burial so I just used your envelope you sent me and you got it ... the self-assessment form was in the envelope.
It is estimated Labour would get around £1billion annually, which in tax terms is peanuts. The National Health Service alone, for example, soaks up more than £100billion - and rising - despite 'efficiency savings'. So why do it? The answer is probably to provide electoral cover for more widespread tax rises if Labour wins the next election.
While it may seem obvious on many levels that of course the government should take money from higher earners in a difficult economic environment - in particular when one of the other political debates raging at the moment is about introducing real-terms benefit cuts for those on the lowest incomes, a move likely to plunge even more children into poverty - it has always struck me as singularly unfair that the only higher earners being asked to pay more are those with children.