I don't buy this argument. If comes down to the two definitions of fair - is it fair that you pay for what you use, or pay that you pay what you can afford? A

I don't buy this argument. If comes down to the two definitions of fair - is it fair that you pay for what you use, or pay that you pay what you can afford? A tax system tends to walk the line between the two of these but it's very rare than any tax or tax system makes it a simple matter of charging for resource usage. There are elements of that, sure (and Amazon and Starbucks will pay additional road tax, fuel tax, property charges, NI on employees and so on so they are paying more than Google in that way) but part of it is you pay what you can afford. In the same way prices aren't set based on what something costs, they're primarily based on what something is worth (go look at the cost of a Starbucks Latte and then we can talk if you disagree), that's how many taxes are set. Corporation tax is (or should be) Google paying for access to the market they wish to operate in - that's what the UK government is offering them and that's what they should be paying for. If that's a good deal for them (and even paying full corporation tax it is) then great, if not they can go somewhere else. It's the equivalent of the argument that taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Taxes are the price you should pay for operating in an attractive market.