Would not those willing to cut taxes belong to the anti-Sheriff of Nottingham party?

Sir, E.J. Dionne JR refers to the Republican Party that “only knows how to cut taxes for the very rich”, as “The anti-Robin Hood party”, Washington Post October 2, 2017.

I do not want to enter the discussion of whether taxes should be lowered or raised, but I do believe there  is a fundamental mistake in the terminology used.

As I remember it was the Sheriff of Nottingham who served as Prince John's chief enforcer, collecting unlimited taxes from the people of Nottingham, and forcing Robin Hood and Little John to take refuge in the Sherwood Forest, where they did no one harm, much the contrary... ask friar Tuck.

Taxes should be collected, paid and used, only as a result of a harmonious relation between citizens and governments.

If we are to develop for systems that “Protect and increase tax revenues by implementing multilateral automatic information exchange”, these should go hand in hand with equally automatic systems that make certain that the way government spends such tax revenues, is in agreement with what was promised to the tax-payers. Otherwise we might run into deadly efficient Sheriffs of Nottingham collecting taxes for obnoxious King Johns, without even having a Sherwood Forest where to hide.

I repeat nothing works better against tax havens than tax heavens. And if we do not get those heavens we better keep some havens.

Tax evasion is often described in terms of countries losing money. That is not entirely correct. It is the government of a country that loses the right to administer the evaded tax funds… and sometimes that is not all bad.

There are cases in which it would seem it should be a civic duty to escape the payment of taxes, so that those resources are not dilapidated and can be better used defending the country.

In Venezuela its government gives away in free gas more than all its health, education and social spending put together. Has not a government that does that forfeited its right to tax the citizens?

Irresponsible governments should not have guaranteed access to any type of information about their subjects.

Let us be careful with any Tax Collector's Unite call... they might all belong to a small mutual admiration club, with mutual interests and an overpowering group solidarity.

On a global scale, on an accumulated basis, there is certainly some need for tax-havens, meaning for some Sherwood Forests

Not everywhere, but truth is that in the majority of countries, the need of many citizens for a safe-haven, a Sherwood Forest, so as to escape from bad Prince Johns’ Sheriffs of Nottingham who, skimming them, just waste away fiscal income, surpasses by far the needs of all citizens for Robin Hoods able to skim some of the “filthy” rich. 

You have to make up your mind whether you are a Sheriff of Nottingham, or a Robin Hood, you can´t be both. 

Nothing as effective against tax-havens than tax-heavens

There is an underlying and never questioned premise that guides most discussions today, and that is… If all profits are taxed and all taxes are paid then the world is saved. 

I do not want to be a party pooper, and I definitely do not suggest, much less instigate, we should evade paying our taxes, but... are we really sure that a tax paid will be more productive than a tax withheld? 

What if we all have to go the route of an economia sommersa, and not pay taxes, in order for the world not to collapse? Do we not at least owe our children and grandchildren asking that question? So as to at least put some pressure on our governments?

There was a time when indeed a Robin Hood tax was contemplated but that has now only evolved into a questionable Sheriff of Nottingham-Prince John tax.