Your rebuttal appears to miss the point that O'Reilly makes.

First: This page [1] shows business tax is about 1B of 6B total for San Francisco. In most cities in the United States, business tax is a relatively small part of total tax revenue. Most cities derive the largest proportion of tax revenue from property taxes. For SF, it is 2B per year -- the highest of any tax revenue category. SF property prices have risen a lot in the last ten years, so property tax has also risen. I understand some of this could be attributed to a strong economy combined with difficult regulations to build new residential housing. Thus, SF has seen a historic rise in housing prices.

Second: Speaking more specifically to O'Reilly's point about the "art of tax avoidance": Are you familiar with "base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)"? Sometimes you hear the term "Dutch Sandwich" or "Double Irish arrangement" in media. Global (tech) companies can greatly reduce national taxes by using these tax strategies. Thus, they deny much needed tax revenue to various countries where they operate. Please note: These tax strategies are not only limited to tech. Any industry that is heavily weighted towards "intellectual property", such as pharma, uses similar tax strategies. (General Electric was one of the earliest and most aggressive.) Famously, even Starbucks, which isn't a very "IP intense" industry managed to pay zero national taxes in the UK one year. After some embarrassing news stories, they offered a voluntary payment to the UK nat'l gov't.

[1] https://sfgov.org/scorecards//finance/expenditures-and-reven...