Bearing in mind the loss the UK made over returning Northern Rock back to private ownership, it is very worrying to hear the Public Accounts Committee signalling its concern that the £66 billion we have pumped into RBS and Lloyds may have been flushed down the pan ("MPs warn £66bn banking bailout cash could be lost", The Herald, November 16).

The Government owns 85% of RBS and it could easily recover its investment by buying the remaining shares and making it wholly state-owned. The infrastructure, work practices and staff of the organisation could remain unaltered but the Government could dictate policy and demand co-operation.

To many this is an attractive proposition so one has to wonder why it is rejected by some but not all politicians. Would the Government of the day rather waste £66bn of taxpayers' money rather than nationalise a bank? It seems it is acceptable to own 85% of a bank and metaphorically let the tail wag the dog but to own the bank outright is frowned upon.

One is left with the uncomfortable feeling that government reluctance to nationalise RBS is based simply on the undeniable fact that if it were so, immediately all other private banks would be placed at a commercial disadvantage. Yet again the best interests of the taxpayer are subordinated to those of the establishment.

David J Crawford,

131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

I note that it is apparently going to be difficult to sell RBS and Lloyds back to the private sector. Given the ideological make-up of the Government, it can obviously only see this as a problem, but from a less blinkered perspective it could provide an opportunity.

RBS is about 80% publicly owned but operates pretty much exactly as it did before. Given the high level of public ownership it would be relatively easy to nationalise it and convert it into a public bank. A large nationalised bank could help address several economic problems by providing funds for investment and operating as a local development bank. Under public supervision it would find it more difficult to engage in the various abuses it previously did and will certainly do again.

When the economy improves, a well-behaved, publicly owned bank will be profitable and, if a full part of the public sector, it will provide a considerable level of income for the Government rather than enrich a few privileged individuals.

Iain Paterson,

2F Killermont View,

Glasgow.

"We are not accusing you of being illegal. We are accusing you of being immoral,'' thundered Margaret Hodge MP, chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee to the finance chiefs of Starbucks, Google and Amazon this week. Meanwhile, Alison Rowat piles in behind Mrs Hodge with all the sanctimony she can muster about fairness ("Public needs to act against the greedy multinationals", The Herald, November 16).

In these troubled times, it ill behoves members of the political and media classes to lecture the rest of us about morality and public probity. At least bankers occasionally display some modesty and contrition.

It is the duty of us all to avoid paying tax as much as we can. Our first responsibilities are to our own families, not to other families via the state, as long as we give the state in taxation what we legally owe.

Corporation tax is borne not by companies but by individuals – workers in lower wages, shareholders in lower dividends, customers in higher prices, and by all of us in lower capital investment and future economic growth.

I have always arranged my affairs to pay as little tax as I possibly can. Margaret Hodge and other left-wingers no doubt do exactly the same. Are we to believe they are continually vigilant in shifting their savings between accounts in order to get the highest return so they can pay as much tax as possible? Do they not keep their assets in the name of the spouse with the lower tax rate? Do they not make use of pension tax reliefs and the tax-free lump sum from their pension funds? Do they not have PEPs and ISAs in order to lower their tax liability?

Indeed, do they not realise the value of their ISA and pension funds depends on private firms engaging in transfer pricing to maximise their declaration of profits in low-tax jurisdictions such as Ireland, the Channel Islands and Luxembourg?

Instead of moralising about greed, fairness and level playing fields, those on the left should be wiser in their judgment and better informed in their economics. Starbucks is a franchise operation, so any boycott of its products will throw out of work possibly a dozen local people in the event of a branch closure. Socialists should remember the fiendishly complex tax system Gordon Brown bequeathed us costs £11 billion annually to administer. Tolley's Tax Guide now runs to 11,000 pages, of which 1897 pages relate to Corporation Tax alone – 185% more than in 1999/2000. And membership of the Chartered Institute of Taxation surged 52% between 1996 and 2010.

If the Government was not spending 50% of Gross Domestic Product, it would not be having to take 42% in taxation, and borrowing the rest. This equation, not tax avoidance, is the source of our economic problems. We need to take the axe to public spending and reduce the average and marginal tax rates, combined with a ruthless simplification of the tax system by moving towards a flat tax.

All the evidence from here and abroad shows such an approach would cut avoidance, raise home tax revenue and reduce capital flight and profits to offshore tax jurisdictions. The leftist view, as exemplified by Margaret Hodge, has not only bankrupted itself, it has come close to bankrupting the country.

Richard Mowbray,

4 Ancaster Drive, Glasgow.