You are also assuming the tax incidence of corporation tax will fall mostly upon shareholders. For example if the incidence was 70% on workers and 30% on shareholders then this should not be a progressive form of taxation. I think most economists believe the tax incidence is shared between parts of the corporation (workers, consumers, and shareholders) but I don't think there is much consensus on the proportions.
The annual Global Wealth Report from UBS [0] usually shows a very wide base of millionaires in the rich countries (there are 23 million millionaires in the US) and a rapidly rising crop of new rich people all over the world, especially the rapidly growing countries like India and China.
Even for those at the very tip of the pyramid, the 0.01%, there's a ton of turnover. Who was the richest family 0, 10, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 years ago? The answers are all very different.
Don't forget a large amount of US stocks are held by overseas individuals. So the burden is put on American workers in order to protect the capital of overseas millionaire investors.
Or overseas investors are sending capital to America, where it enlarges existing businesses and creates new ones, leading to more jobs, more competition for the consumer's dollar, and more tax for the US government when money is paid out to those investors.
If it was so simple to use capital to exploit the rest of society, why would these investors not simply invest where they are? Why go to the trouble and expense of investing their money in a different country?
Edit: Nevermind, it looks like the big beautiful big specifically goes after sovereign wealth funds, retirements funds, etc and overrides existing treaties. So at least we aren't subsidizing other countries on the back of high taxes on American workers.