[hackuser]

Personal consumption is the leading 'driver' (or one of them) of the U.S. economy.

I also don't see the distinction: Why shouldn't corporations pay their share, and why should private citizens have to pay more to cover it (taxes are a zero sum game)? Why is a citizen's personal budget somehow of little value, but corporate budgets are sacrosanct? I'm more concerned with protecting private people than corporations.

> corporate taxes should be lower

Lower than what? On what basis do you say they currently are too high (or too low)?

[cortesoft]

Other people have made the argument as to why we should lower or eliminate corporate income tax much better than I ever could; here is one such argument https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-...

In short, corporations never 'take' income. It is the shareholders and executives who 'take' the income. Tax the money at that point, and at a level that offsets the loss of corporate income taxes. This would not be shifting the burden to other citizens, it is just realizing the truth that a corporation isn't a REAL person, it is a group of people, and those are the people who should be taxed.

[hackuser]

I don't know there's such a thing in economics as 'taking' income. Money is taxed when it is transacted between entities; it's pretty simple. Buy something, pay someone, pass your inheritance to your children, etc., and it's taxed. (It's not taxed when it sits still.)

Now people want to give certain transactions a special status; for some creative reason, this time it's different. What I see is that the transactions that are 'special', such as corporate and estate taxes, benefit the same group of people. Also, the same people shouldn't have their income taxed as highly because they are more important than everyone - they are 'job creators'. How come it's never the taxes of the working class, such as sales tax, that need special treatment?