A CORNER STORE IS NOT A MULTINATIONAL EMPIRE.

JUSTICE · ECONOMIC JUSTICE

Published by | Langhorne P. Breedlove

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 · 12:20 AM ET

Tags: Corporate Taxation · Progressive Taxes · Small Business · Revenue · Accountability

Dear fellow American proletariat: America has developed a peculiar habit of calling a family-owned shop and a multinational corporation the same thing: business. One sells sandwiches, the other has subsidiaries in forty countries and a tax department with its own organizational chart. The law can tell the difference. It should.

American Proletariat proposes graduated federal corporate profit taxation that protects smaller enterprises while requiring far greater contributions from exceptionally large, profitable corporations. This is not a proposal to tax every dollar a company earns at 92 percent. Revenue determines a company's size category; a carefully defined taxable-profit base determines what is actually taxed. Those are different numbers, and treating them as interchangeable would make for spectacularly bad legislation.

THE MANDATE

Replace the present generally flat 21% federal corporate income-tax rate with a progressive schedule, including a potential 92% top marginal rate for the highest qualifying corporate profits of firms whose annual group revenue exceeds $1 billion. The $1 billion figure is a proposed size-classification threshold, not a claim that one billion dollars of sales constitutes one billion dollars of profit. (Source 01)

Exact lower brackets, profit thresholds, transition rules and anti-avoidance provisions require legislation and independent modeling. The top rate would apply only to taxable profit within its highest bracket, not retroactively to all income and not to gross sales. A small business with $900,000 in receipts and $75,000 in taxable profit must not be confused with an international conglomerate booking billions of revenue.

This corporate proposal is separate from AP's proposed 0% federal business income-tax treatment for qualifying firms with less than $1 million in annual gross receipts and from the 92% top marginal individual income-tax proposal on incomes above $5 million. Their boundaries, including treatment of pass-through entities, must be coordinated so owners cannot arbitrage one system against another.

ROOTS & HISTORY

The United States once taxed corporate income through multiple brackets. Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the federal structure used a graduated schedule with a 35% top statutory rate, while special rules created higher effective marginal rates in limited ranges. The 2017 law replaced that schedule with the 21% rate effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. (Source 02)

Corporate taxation is not a novelty invented by an angry pamphleteer. What changed was the statutory rate structure. But statutory rates and taxes actually paid are not identical: allowable deductions, prior losses, tax credits, entity choice and international rules all affect liability. In a Government Accountability Office study of tax years 2014–2018, the average effective rate among profitable large corporations fell from 16% in 2014 to 9% in 2018, using the study's defined income measure. That finding does not establish what a new 92% rate would collect. (Source 03)

TODAY · WHAT THE TAX CODE DOES

As of November 2026, 26 U.S.C. § 11 generally imposes a 21% tax on the taxable income of corporations covered by that provision. The statute also contains exceptions and interacts with other corporate tax rules. It is not a 21% levy on every dollar of corporate revenue. (Source 01)

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 also created a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax based on adjusted financial-statement income for certain large corporations, generally those meeting a three-year average $1 billion test with special rules for multinational groups. That minimum-tax regime differs from AP's proposed graduated regular corporate tax and would need to be reconciled with it. (Source 04)

The Congressional Budget Office reported $452 billion in federal corporate income-tax receipts for fiscal year 2025, down from $530 billion in fiscal year 2024; the reporting notes timing effects and the consequences of tax changes. The estimate provides scale, not a promise that any proposed top rate multiplies revenue in direct proportion. (Source 05)

Another complication: not every business pays federal corporate income tax as a C corporation. Many partnerships, S corporations and sole proprietorships pass taxable income through to their owners, where it is typically taxed under the individual system. A policy protecting smaller companies cannot ignore that boundary. (Source 06)

THE LEGAL PATH

Congress would amend the Internal Revenue Code to define qualifying corporations, marginal profit brackets, group revenue, consolidated entities, ownership attribution and the treatment of domestic and foreign income. Treasury would write implementing rules within statutory authority, and the IRS would administer examinations, reporting and enforcement. Federal tax legislation cannot be replaced by an executive press conference, however theatrical the podium.

A lawful system must address loss carryforwards, legitimate investment deductions, research costs, foreign tax credits and existing minimum-tax obligations. It must also prevent large groups from pretending that hundreds of subsidiaries constitute unrelated neighborhood businesses. Use consolidated worldwide group revenue where legally appropriate, subject to treaties and enforceable definitions.

THE PLAN · SIZE MATTERS, PROFIT MATTERS

01 · CLASSIFY THE ENTERPRISE

Use annual aggregated group revenue to determine which size schedule applies. Define control and related-party aggregation, measure revenue consistently and prevent artificial fragmentation. Introduce transitional treatment for fast-growing businesses near a threshold so one large contract does not create a sudden arbitrary cliff.

02 · TAX PROFIT PROGRESSIVELY

Apply marginal rates to statutory taxable-profit brackets, not gross sales. Develop a modest small-firm schedule and progressively higher brackets for very large firms. Model the proposed 92% top marginal rate only after testing the definition of extraordinary taxable profit, behavioral responses, competitiveness and the risk of shifting costs onto workers or consumers.

03 · CLOSE THE ESCAPE HATCHES

Review offshore profit shifting, related-party pricing, corporate inversions, acquisition structures, artificial entity splitting and preferential treatment that defeats the intended brackets. Preserve legitimate deductions and normal loss recovery while making avoidance rules administrable and subject to judicial review.

04 · PUBLISH THE RECEIPTS

Require annual public reporting of collections, effective tax rates by company-size category, examination outcomes and the number of enterprises affected, with privacy protections for nonpublic taxpayer information. A tax reform should be judged on results, not the size of the number printed on a campaign poster.

THE TEN-YEAR LEDGER

The baseline must begin with the CBO's enacted-law corporate revenue projections, the IRS's administrative cost, and modeled interactions with the existing corporate alternative minimum tax and other federal taxes. A proposed 92% top marginal rate cannot responsibly be multiplied by all reported corporate profits to estimate collections. (Sources 04, 05)

For the first-year forecast and each of ten fiscal years, model corporations by consolidated revenue and taxable-profit band; calculate gross liabilities under current law and the proposal; then account for deductions, losses, credits, behavioral responses, offshore relocation, enforcement spending, transition costs, revenue offsets and effects on personal taxes. Separately show optimistic, central and adverse cases.

No defensible first-year net revenue or ten-year estimate can be claimed until the taxable-profit brackets, eligible firm counts and legal design are specified. That gap is a modeling requirement, not an excuse to invent a trillion dollars and declare victory.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

Very high marginal rates can encourage firms to relocate booked profits, change organizational form, delay investments, distribute earnings differently or spend more on tax planning. The effects depend heavily on how much real economic activity can move, the international rules, available tax credits and the actual thresholds. Revenue-based size classifications can also disadvantage low-margin industries if their profit rates are poorly designed.

Supporters of a flat corporate rate argue that a simple rate limits distortion and compliance costs; critics argue that uniform statutory treatment ignores differences in scale and market power. AP must measure both arguments against evidence. A responsible plan can still be ambitious while testing whether 92% actually outperforms lower rates in sustainable receipts and economic outcomes.

MEASURING SUCCESS

Track net annual receipts relative to the baseline, effective rates by profit and revenue class, business formations, real investment, wages, employment, profit shifting, enforcement yields and compliance costs. Examine whether small-firm access and competition improve, and whether tax revenue remains stable during economic downturns.

Economic justice is not accomplished by announcing a number high enough to frighten a boardroom. It is accomplished when the law collects what it is supposed to collect, the public knows where the money goes, small businesses are not crushed, and the largest enterprises cannot purchase a separate interpretation of citizenship.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

01 · U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel — 26 U.S.C. § 11, Tax Imposed; law through October 9, 2026. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-121/t26/s11/

02 · Internal Revenue Service — Internal Revenue Manual 3.12.16, Corporate Income Tax Returns; historical corporate rate table (2025). https://www.irs.gov/irm/part3/irm_03-012-016r

03 · U.S. Government Accountability Office — Corporate Income Tax: Effective Rates Before and After 2017 Law Change, GAO-23-105384 (December 14, 2022). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105384

04 · Internal Revenue Service — Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022; current program guidance. https://www.irs.gov/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022/corporate-alternative-minimum-tax

05 · Congressional Budget Office — The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 (February 2026). https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105

06 · U.S. Department of the Treasury — Taxing S-Corps as C-Corporations, Office of Tax Analysis Working Paper 126 (2024). https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/WP-126.pdf

10 RECOMMENDED ARTICLES, ESSAYS & POLICIES

→ Explore 92% Tax on $5M+ Income

→ Explore 0% Business Income Tax Under $1M

→ Explore Ten-Year Fiscal Accountability

→ Explore English Plus a Second Language

→ Explore Global Ocean Restoration

→ Explore Greenbacks

→ Explore Libertarians

→ Explore Elite & Industrial Power

→ Explore Outlaws, Pirates & Folklore

→ Explore Government-Paid Apprenticeships & Credentials

WE ARE ONE.  ·  E PLURIBUS UNUM.