so it's okay to substantutivaly reduce their tax burden as done today but not to increase it because that would mean a closed market?
> Fining a company also has a negative consequence as it makes less rewarding for small company to grow
There's so many more differences than just 'fines', I don't think you can draw that simple a conclusion.
It's also not about taxing a specific company, taxes are used to discourage/incentivize certain movement in a market.
If you (an individual) pay higher tax for using fossil fuels than renewable energy, you are incentivized to use renewable energy.,
If you have the option to tax-deduct your retirement plan, you are incentivized to invest in a retirement plan.
In a just system, a FINE is ordered for breaking rules. I doubt that fining a company for i.e. anti-competitive behavior makes it "less rewarding" for small companies in the same space to grow. Moreover, those small companies were likely affected by those anti-competitive behaviors, as they were competitors.
I think there's a very big space for a small company/startup to grow before it'd attain the same level of scrutiny by Govs as Apple
If a company has reached the dominance of being taxed above average (or fined) due to their market behavior, them continuing to take the same money from the consumer SHOULD create room for other entrants in the same market-segment to balance the competition.
If a company has reached such a state in a major market-segment that it can simply forward all additive costs for anti-competitive or market-dominating behavior to the consumer without consequences in sales, it probably means that the company is already way too big and should have been regulated much earlier...
However, I doubt that anything like this is at play here.