also, you seem to imply a scenario where the company is kicked out of the country. That does not recoup any taxmoney to the state. It also likely doesn't make the infrastructure cheaper to maintain or any less desired, so the correct equation is just that you'd loose whatever taxes they do pay (surely they don't dodge all of them),and the sum of the salaries of their employees, plus whatever service the company provides, and you gain nothing.
"you do the math"
edit: missing "don't"
The folly so many keep making is they think every tax dollar is necessary to support every company present. That type of thinking makes even one cent of avoidance appear to be a net negative, when amount paid overall can still be a net positive compared to impact of presence.
Response to edit: Please describe the full calculation (with factual numbers) of "national wealth", and then we'll talk.
That's not how burden of proof works. You made the claim that "the country would literally be better off if those people were unemployed!", so prove it.
> But I'll give you a hint, if tax evasion was good for a country, why would that country have taxes at all...?
A "hint" is not what's required here.
Pretty easy really. Multiply the cost of unemployment benefits * number of company employees in that country. Then look at the tax evaded by the company. "You do the math".
JSA in the UK is £73/week, or £3796/year. Let's say a company dodges £1Bn/year in taxes. How many people would they need to employ before the country breaks even?