"Taxes" is just the revenue column for society's ledger.
You're missing the point.
I also didn't make my point very well:
For the last 40 years, society's tax burden had steadily shifted from corporate profits to labor. In other words, people now subsidize business.
Now that corporations are people (too), it's unfair to exclude them from the opportunity to subsidize business.
Yes, and if the societal benefit to sociatal spending was less than the cost of revenue, then it's a net loss to society to have such a thing.
Meanwhile, I'm still chewing on two other notions.
"Taxes" is the government's way to stimulate demand for money. Kinda flips the model on its head, reversing the flow of information, which is not yet intuitive for me.
Taxes and procurement are just means to transfer wealth.
And yes, this will automatically be around as much as the average company pays in taxes. If the total spent is equal to the total collected in taxes, then the average company has as much spent on it as it pays in taxes. The differentiation among companies/individuals is government picking winners and losers. Just like the fact that the wealthy pay more in taxes and the poor receive more means the government is picking certain individuals to have more spent on them. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, it's just what society decides.