That problem already exists, and I can't see it getting any worse than it already is. And you solve it the same way that you do now: by regulating which expense

That problem already exists, and I can't see it getting any worse than it already is. And you solve it the same way that you do now: by regulating which expenses are actually deductible. Basically any benefit that primarily benefits an individual is counted as income to that individual. What goes away is the incentive to locate all of the company's IP in a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands, and then rent it all back to the subsidiary in New York at wildly inflated prices that ensure that all income is technically earned in the Cayman Islands. Because it would no longer matter where the income was earned, it would only matter to whom it is paid out to. Less protection for billionaires who are primarily interested in asset inflation. I'm pretty sure this would actually increase total taxes collected because it shifts tax burden away from low and easily avoided corporate taxes, and towards individuals that pay higher income tax rates that are much harder to avoid. But even if it doesn't fully compensate, you can easily adjust top bracket rates to fill the gap, without any worry that it will hurt workers like the corporate income tax does. https://taxfoundation.org/labor-bears-corporate-tax/ https://taxfoundation.org/labor-bears-corporate-tax/