This is a well researched article, my main disagreement in this field is the hubris necessary to even think greater tax receipts are the goal, and this is reflected in the language choice.<p>I think this is a blind spot as it seems the only people interested would be those hoping for some kind of "tax justice" which taps into a popular sentiment: people choosing to wonder why we aren't being screwed equally, instead of wondering why we are being screwed at all.<p>I get it, your tax bill comes and is inconvenient, someone else in a seemingly higher tax bracket seems to leverage a card or chess move that you don't have the ability to pursue.<p>But this is all a red herring. To the Supreme Court, choosing to go to a gas station in a neighboring town for lower tax rates is just as valid as doing what some multinational does for lower tax rates by having a nominal structure in another country. (And that's from the Supreme Court you actually liked!)<p>The aggregate priority of the US government is velocity within the economy. The speed that money moves within the economy, not the revenue collection from [ostensibly] facilitating it.<p>And even detractors to this reality can never reach agreement on what a "fair share" is. A completely arbitrary and undefined sentiment, based on a misunderstanding of the world and that individual's own socioeconomic status or outright mediocrity.<p>What is the most interesting is that these multinationals <i>are</i> sometimes paying tax somewhere else. Like the article mentions about how they are currently paying Denmark at 22% and have an inability to deduct enough. Ultimately, the state needs to figure out their revenues, taxing earnings is not the only way to do that and its only controversial to say that because some states can't balance their budget without it, and yet, others can by providing a good or service people are willing to pay for.