[patrickaljord]

> but with apologies to Mitt Romney, corporations aren't people

I agree corporations are not people but then why are they taxed instead of just the people? This whole country was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation". Any people or organization being taxed will try to influence politics to improve their tax bill. There is no way around that.

You can have corporate taxes or you can have politics with no corporation meddling but you cannot and will never get both as people who own these corporations will always try to lobby politics one way or another in favor of the corporations.

[jfengel]

Because if you don't do that, then rich people would just give their money to a corporation to "hold" for them. This already happens anyway, but regulations try to restrict it.

Eliminating corporate taxes would not change the fact that corporations want to tilt politics in their direction. There are other suggestions for ways to compensate for the differences between personal income and income to a corporation you own, but they always have to be designed to be cognizant of the way people will game the system.

[mcintyre1994]

You could swap “taxes” for “regulations” in your last sentence and it’d be equally true - scrapping corporate taxed wouldn’t eliminate corporate lobbying.

[patrickaljord]

True, the more overregulated an economy is, the more corrupt it will be. That's just a fact of life. Corollary, the less regulated countries but with a strong rule of law for the few regulations that do exist are the less corrupt worldwide. Note that it is easier to have strong and consistent application of the law (rule of law) when regulations are fewer as it's more simple to handle for both the legislator and corporations which increase the level of trust and lowers corruption.