The reason I don't think it's a serious problem is that governments operate on the counterfactual that they can legally collect enough to fund their patronage

The reason I don't think it's a serious problem is that governments operate on the counterfactual that they can legally collect enough to fund their patronage to key coalitions. They can't, and if they have their own currency, their debt never comes due because they can steal it from savers through inflation. But they prefer to play this game, and that requires trading that debt to someone, and those someones are pension funds and other governments who use these vehicles in jurisdictions that can't easily be looted by said debtor states. The last government to collapse because of tax evasion was Greece, and the reason people evaded there was because it was complex, inconsistent and corrupt. The evasion facilities were built in by design, usually under the auspices of "justice," for favoured parties. The state is happy because when everyone is compromised, they have the discretion to step around the laws and always get someone on something, and blackmail and extortion are more efficient than courts. That said, this perspective is from a basic disagreement in principle with managerialism. We pay what we are legally obligated to, and if the rules are so complex as to be inconsistent and exploitable, and governments are too mercurial to risk leaving capital within their reach, it's their own fault. The whole rich-people-bad argument is ugly and insincere because it advocates an extortionate state that panders to smaller human urges, and so I don't have a lot of tolerance for it.