Taking on multinationals is tough ground for mere national governments, but unfortunately for Google, Apple and Ikea, Australians don't buy the line that taxing them will be bad for the economy, write Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods.

Politicians spend a lot of time dancing around the tricky issue of how on earth it is we're going to pay for a future of bingo and hip replacements.

We need a 'mature debate' about tax, we're often told (though rarely by oppositions). Meanwhile, last week's Intergenerational Report was a lengthy exercise in softening us up for belt-tightening and personal sacrifice ahead.

But it turns out that voters have a clear view about how to fix the budget bottom line and who should fix it.

Even for those who have never attended an earnest left-wing discussion group or occupied anything in their lives, Australians agree on the three best targets for raising tax revenue. In reverse order, they can be summed up as The Rich, Rich Companies and Rich Multinational Companies.

Q. Do you think the following pay too much tax, not enough tax or about the right amount?

Pay too much Don't pay enough Pay about right amount Don't know Don't pay enough - Labor voters Don't pay enough - Lib/Nat voters Large businesses 3% 64% 14% 19% 72% 60% Small businesses 41% 6% 34% 19% 8% 6% People on low incomes 47% 5% 36% 13% 4% 6% People on average incomes 43% 5% 41% 11% 4% 7% People on high incomes 10% 59% 19% 12% 66% 56% You personally 36% 4% 47% 13% 4% 5% Mining companies 4% 67% 12% 17% 75% 63% Retirees on large incomes 15% 29% 30% 26% 33% 26% Large international companies (such as Google and Apple) 2% 73% 8% 18% 74% 73% Religious organisations 5% 53% 16% 26% 54% 53%

In a political period characterised by partisan division - supporters of the major parties can't seem to agree on anything these days - there is remarkable unity on the desire for the big end of town to pay more tax and for regular people to get a break.

And the most popular target for voters of all persuasions are the large multinationals. Think Google, Apple, Ikea - all making headlines for their small national tax contributions.

Both sides of politics have attempted to quench this appetite for more tax revenue from the big international players - in talk if not yet in action.

Turning this into viable policy though is tough, with the tax issue fast becoming the flash point in the secret war that defines the global economy, the battle between the nation state and the multi-national corporations whose earnings dwarf many nations' GDPs.

At least the nation state is having a crack.

Treasurer Joe Hockey based his agenda at last year's G20 summit around a global effort to avoid the world's largest corporations - and some of its coolest brands - making billions while paying next to no tax in the countries they operate in.

Meanwhile, Labor leader Bill Shorten's first big idea of 2015 was to claw back $2 billion from these same multinational corporations in Australian tax avoidance.

On cue, big business has issued dire warnings that chasing more tax will damage the economy by driving these corporations that provide such as essential services as virtual music libraries and flat-pack shoe cupboards out of the country.

These fears speak to the unspoken battle lines of the globalised economy - the relative shift of power between the nation-state and the multinational corporation.

Armed with free trade agreements that undermine the power to regulate and tax havens that ensure that one nation splitting from the consensus wins big, and fuelled by an industry of massively remunerated accountants who don't seem to lose any sleep over the implications of their actions, the power of the global corporation to trade without a tax footprint has reached a high point.

Google is developing a reputation as a repeat tax offender, siphoning revenue earned in national markets through international divisions of the company. The UK has introduced a suite of laws targeting multinationals labelled the 'Google Tax' in honour of the online juggernaut's creative accounting.

In Australia, Google paid about $500,000 in tax in 2013 despite local ad revenues in the vicinity of $2 billion.

Taking on multinationals is tough ground for mere national governments. Tantrums and threats to take their bats, balls, coal mines and profits and play elsewhere are to be expected.

But this week's Essential Report shows that Australians don't buy the line that taxing multinationals will be bad for the economy.

Q. Do you think that making big multinational corporations pay more tax would be good for the economy because it would increase Government revenue or bad for the economy because these companies would stop investing in Australia?

Total Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote Other Good for the economy 60% 65% 61% 66% 62% Bad for the economy 13% 12% 14% 8% 12% Don't know 27% 23% 25% 26% 26%

Again, a rare outbreak of cross-party unity. Voters appear to be yearning for a government that will stand up to the multinationals.

The cross-party Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance is a positive step to exposing the tax contributions and minimisation strategies in play.

National policy fixes to multinational tax rip-offs are complicated as economies become increasingly globalised; but if governments want to allay voters' concerns about fair solutions to intergenerational budget woes, they need to be a priority.

Peter Lewis is a director of Essential Media Communications. Jackie Woods is a communications consultant at Essential Media Communications.