> The taxes paid would go towards infrastructure, education, health care and other items that benefit all people in our society, and by extension also to us shareholders.
This assumes, of course, that governments can spend the money as efficiently as Apple.
It depends on the definition of efficient. Apple's et al would be obligated to invest for the benefit of shareholders; a small minority of the broader population.
On the other hand, in theory, the government invests - and often simply spends (read: little concern for any sort of return) - for the broader good.
On a personal note: What confuses me is when outfits like Apple complain about the quality of workers, yet avoid taxes. Taxes that could, at least in theory, be used for edu. That's hypocritical, and (to me) counter productive.
This assumes, of course, that governments can spend the money as efficiently as Apple.