Currently we're stuck at figuring out how an infinite prisoner's dilemma leads to an outcome that caps losses to one agent, and the cap somehow falls below "things we don't need to do" or around "things we have to do"
The argument is that if human services are important enough that reducing service is unethical, and a government also provides other services that do not meet that standard, then in the event of revenue reduction, those other services should be reduced before human services. This specifically has to do with the Irish situation the link is about: corporate tax from externally derived revenue.
Additionally, human services are not necessarily best provided by governments, so in a situation where all corporate tax revenue were reduced, meaning more money to be allocated by shareholders and employees, and human services budgets were reduced commensurately, charity would make up for it, or more than make up for it. This applies to a potential case of internally-derived (internal to the EU) corporate tax revenue being generally reduced.
I realize you will disagree strongly/viscerally with both points. That’s okay.
I also stand by my belief that we can all strongly disagree and still extend goodwill to each other, even if you don’t find that attitude helpful.
Additionally, lower government revenue should require cuts from other areas first, like military and corporate subsidies. We shouldn’t accept that any of the supposedly missing Apple tax revenue should affect the poor or uneducated. To threaten such seems unethical.