I am sick of hearing that wealthy people who use tax-avoidance schemes are “doing nothing wrong”. The only reason they are doing nothing wrong is that other wealthy people – friends, relatives, business associates, old school chums – in the legislature have built loopholes into the tax system for this purpose. We have a collusive system where members of an exclusive clique gain access to the legislature, often while funded by others of the clique, and create legislation that only applies to those outside the clique and creates a lower-tax life for those within it. Other people dodging tax are doing something wrong; the only reason these people are doing nothing wrong is that their tax-reduction schemes come with immunity. To place some people above the laws that govern the rest of society is to create something between a kleptocracy and an oligarchy. Colluding in such a system is doing something wrong. Dr Stephen Riley Bruton, Somerset • “X pays the full amount of tax they are legally obliged to pay in the UK” is a meaningless statement, given the modest outlay on lawyers and tax havens required to reduce that tax to a risible amount. “Morally obliged to pay” should be used as an accompanying measure in public discourse. It could be based on factors such as the proportion of household income paid by poorer families, or the annual amount easily payable without having to sell a mansion, yacht or island. Any other suggestions? Hilary Cashman Norton, County Durham • What do we learn about the nature of our democracy if it turns out that it is a criminal offence to disclose the tax status of a private citizen (Sunak asks PM for investigation into his own financial affairs, 10 April)? Hugh Cooper Charing, Kent • As part of Lord Geidt’s review of whether Rishi Sunak made the appropriate declarations, I trust that he will examine an issue which has received relatively little attention – whether as the minister responsible for policy on non-domiciliary status, Sunak took steps to formally remove himself from any consideration of policy on the issue, and to notify his officials of this. If not, he was guilty of a clear conflict of interest. Adrian Carter Penselwood, Somerset • Just as concerning to me as the Sunaks’ financial arrangements is that both of them made legal declarations that they regarded the US as their permanent place of residence. He is a British citizen and a British politician living in England; she is an Indian citizen who has stated her intention to live there. These positions cannot be honestly reconciled – at what point did they cross their fingers? Angela Barton Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire • Whenever the super-rich MP Richard Drax got up to speak, my former colleague, super-heckler Stephen Pound, used to shout: “Who will speak for the millionaires?” It would seem that the answer now is: “The chancellor of the exchequer.” Liz McInnes Labour MP for Heywood and Middleton, 2014-19 • Such a short step from Dishy Rishi to Fishy Rishi. Sue Wallace Thame, Oxfordshire • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.