These threads always cycle round the same comments passing blame between Apple and the government and equating a company making ~$40b per year to individuals making thousands.
It's legal to own a flamethrower in the US. Let's say every single person goes out and buys one and walks around with it, whose fault is it? The government isn't promoting the idea of everyone carrying a flamethrower by not writing a law to prevent it happening. Laws are often reactionary in that after harm is established, laws are written to prevent future harm.
The law that governs business expects every company to pay a fair tax rate to maintain healthy competition. This means a percentage, not a fixed value. It is seen as moral to pay taxes. This is why Tim is happy to exaggerate how much corporation tax Apple pays in the US because the moral thing is what you want everyone else to think you're doing. If Tim thinks it's commendable to be paying 10x the corporation tax in the US vs the EU then why is it not commendable to pay that rate in non-US countries?
Going to the extent of making a company with no tax jurisdiction is exploiting flaws in international law. There is no single government wholly to blame here. What's not expected is for companies to purposely cause harm, they are expected to behave like responsible citizens who don't go out and buy flamethrowers just because they can.
It's not like they can't afford it. Apple has $120b in assets. If their EU portion was 40%, they'd be due about $12b. I think Apple said they'd saved $9-12b in taxes over the years from this. This would leave them with over $100b in assets. Apple spent $12b in a matter of weeks buying back stock.
Apple can actually be made to pay despite acting according to the law but against its intent. There's another case going on just now about an investment fund called Icebreaker partnerships:
The courts have ruled that the investment was a tax avoidance scheme and they are now forcing the 1,000 wealthy investors to pay hefty tax bills.
Nobody likes paying taxes but there is a need for a stable infrastructure that needs to be funded and the people who need the tax breaks least shouldn't be the ones to get the breaks. The taxes go to benefit you. Just because you only see the incompetent politicians, the spending they report is where most of the money goes. $3.5t out of $6.3t is going to the elderly, the sick and young people. Would people prefer their elderly parents/grandparents move in with them, that they'd have to pay high fees to give their kids a basic education? I doubt it so why complain when Apple and other companies are being made to pay what they can easily afford at rates smaller local companies are made to pay?