"...because we're super rich and can hire ultra clever accountants to abuse loopholes in your tax laws that were put in place by politicians paid by other super rich corporations specifically to get away with paying less taxes thereby grossly violating the trust of the American public and the spirit of taxation in general."
Are you still ok with that?
No one wants to pay extra tax, not even those people who want higher taxes. Case in point, how much extra tax did you pay last year? They pay what they are required by law.
Higher tax advocates end up wanting to see insane basic rates and those that want lower taxes propose exemptions. This is the fundamental negotiation that occurs when politicians from both sides of the table sit down.
The idea is to satisfy those that want to see high marginal rates and those that don't want to pay that much tax. Hightax Hilda gets to go back to her constituents and say "Look we have a 35% tax on corporations". Lowtax Lenny gets to go back to his constituents and say "Look you're not going to pay very much tax as long as you hire some lawyers and accountants."
If Apple got to set the tax code it would probably be a lower rate that was simpler to administer so they didn't have to hire so many lawyers and accountants.
The opinion question is whether or not that's a moral job. Either way, it's still the job.
The real issue is that most people think they are legally bound to always make the optimal financial move even if that means being immoral or unethical. Even worse is that many people think that doing so has a certain morality of its own, which IMO is completely, bizarro, nuts.
http://www.directorship.com/stout-shareholders-as-owners/ http://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism/ar...
Apple pays billions in taxes, will pay billions in dividends to shareholders (which goes to retirement/pension funds, universities, charities, etc.), employs thousands (the employees pay taxes), donates to charity, etc. They created an Apple ecosystem that spurred thousands of developers and start-ups to build apps, etc. which in turn created more jobs, taxes, etc.
Are those not ethical or moral to you?
Equally, I think it's fairly naive to expect corporations to be moral, since there's very little incentive for them to be so - I merely respect those that are more.
s/society/government
morality is not defined by how much taxes you pay the government.
who's immoral?
The company that pays less taxes and returns the money to the shareholders,creates jobs, donates to charity, etc. or big government that waste tax payers money by spending it on useless government programs and wars?
Government is part of (and, indeed, defined by) society. I can only imagine that your views on the uselessness of government programs are shaped by the US' admittedly poor example, but that doesn't mean that governments are inherently incapable.
I don't think that's currently true, at least not if you're talking about the top rates that profitable companies pay. Wikipedia says the top corporate tax rate in Belgium is 33.99% and the top federal corporate rate in the US is 38%.
Corporate tax rates have generally declined over time to where the US rate is now one of the highest in the developed world. (Japan beats us by a bit - their top rate is 40%. Most of Europe does not.)
Apple pays billions in taxes, pays dividends to shareholders, employs thousands, etc. if you're not happy with that, maybe you should move to countries with higher corporate tax rates, i'm sure they have a better/bigger economy than the US (they don't, take a good guess why.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...
Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes
Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho...
If so. Then you are exploiting a "loophole" and are a hypocrite.