Two seemingly unrelated news stories have got me thinking about the Robin Hood Tax. The first is the UK government's plan for benefit bounty hunters who will catch all those supposed dole fraudsters apparently driving around in Mercs. The second is the human tragedy of the Pakistan floods.

As Katherine Trebeck wrote here last week, the real shortfall in public money isn't created by those claiming benefits, but by the government's lame attempts to clamp down on the estimated £120bn tax fraud by big business. And, lest we forget, as financial companies post profits again, the same greed that motivates tax evasion also spurred the reckless investments that caused the huge public debt we are now saddled with.

The government's own Spending Challenge, besides sounding like Dale Winton's latest game-show, asks the public to be involved in the 'tough choices' over spending. But in an interview this week with the government's 'efficiency expert' Dr Martin Read (forced out of his job at Logica by disgruntled shareholders - not a great omen) there is absolutely no mention of there being any public input or choice between cuts - 'difficult things only happen,' he confidently predicts, 'when there is no alternative'.

Well, as the new Savings Challenge website shows, there is an alternative. The Robin Hood Tax, as proposed by Oxfam and other agencies, asks those who created this mess to take some responsibility by charging a tiny 0.05% levy on all transactions between banks, taking away the need for 'tough choices' and raising an estimated £200bn annually.

Add to that a few billion collected from tax evaders and you could both protect public services at home and fund overseas aid to help devastated areas like Northern Pakistan. To paraphrase Trainspotting's Renton - 'We can choose another way' and for the people in Pakistan, we can choose life.