My comment was a bit flippant, I admit. But still, from an economic standpoint I think it's flawed to think of the $80 after tax profits as just "money owned b

My comment was a bit flippant, I admit. But still, from an economic standpoint I think it's flawed to think of the $80 after tax profits as just "money owned by the company sitting in a bank account". The idea of "value investing" (in the original sense of the term as it was used in the 1920s-1940s, where people would value companies by just taking "cost of building"+"cost of desks"+"cost of chairs"+"money in bank") is no longer how the stock market works: Virtually all companies are now valued at more than the mere physical assets that they own, so clearly that $80 in the bank account of the company should be worth more than $80 in terms of stock market valuation. After all, the whole point of a corporation is to act as a machine that turns small amounts of money (i.e. capital) into larger sums of money- This is in large part what determines the price of a stock in the investment markets, i.e. how well this machine works... the $80 is merely (a small bit of) evidence that this machine is functioning properly. In conclusion, stock valuation and raw revenue/assets/income are categorically different things and arguing that taxation of one category is equivalent to taxation of the other is a categorical mistake, in my opinion.