I don't think this article explains "why." I don't like the clickbaity misuse of "why." Here are the article's headings:<p>> Apple is the iPhone<p>> What does this mean for Europe?<p>> What kind of taxes are paid in Europe on profits of 34 billion euro?<p>> So how much has Apple actually paid in taxes in Europe?<p>> What could Europe have done with that additional 8 billion euros?<p>> How we made our calculations:<p>Underneath "So how much has Apple actually paid in taxes in Europe?" we get one sentence: In Europe, Apple funnels most of its taxable income through Ireland, a tax haven.<p>This isn't even an answer to "Why the iPhone costs us billions." The answer to that question would include why and how tax havens were created and how they continue to exist. You can tell, because me answering, "Well, Ireland is a tax haven" doesn't satisfy.<p>Instead of providing the past and present of tax havens, the article gives for example where the missing tax money could have gone: a rescue program for refugees in the Mediterranean Sea. This reads like, "Hey Apple, if you paid your taxes, we could be saving refugees." This decontextualized argument does not persuade me.