There's a lot that goes into business planning and decisions, taxes are just a small part. Plus corporations are already pretty good about tax planning and using strategies to keep their effective tax rate low.
The average operation that constitutes that 89% generally do not qualify for or otherwise cannot take advantage of the more egregious examples of... evasive tax strategy, particularly depending on industry. Since I sold firearms there were a myriad of opportunities not available to me.
The TCJA's corporate tax rate cut hasn't done much for the US economy overall. Raising it back up by 8% won't likely do much either, other than generate slightly more revenue.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/did-tcjas-corporate-rate-cuts-work-promised-no-signs-yet
Looking at your source which specifically claims that wage growth and investment won't improve as a result the following factors:
"First, corporations must attract and retain additional funds" - No, the second I wasn't paying as much on my annual pawn balances and sales that capital was available.
"Second, they must invest these funds in new plants, equipment, and processes." - Check, completing in the time it took to shop online and wait for shipping. Some online training for the new POS system as well.
"Third, the new investments must increase worker productivity." - Correct. Investments into a small business can't be superficial in nature and must always directly correlate to improved internal efficiency or customer experience. But basic improvements to a POS system, computers, inventory software, etc represent an immediate increase in productivity barring the time it takes to familiarize.
"Finally, the workers must negotiate higher wages." - At least for me, they didn't need to but I understand that this isn't the case for most.
I understand that my personal experience may not translate across the board, but I can only relate to my own experience as an average case.
Your source also delves into how corporations aren't investing as much, instead electing to buy their own stock back. This as well as the intended tenor of the mentioned factors above highlights for me the problem that when people discuss corporations, they get tunnel vision. 98.2% of businesses have fewer than 100 employees. 89% have fewer than 20. These don't represent people with lobby power or investment capital, it represents people who on average take home 36K a year after expenses. When I was active I handled close to a million in inventory assets and ran a running pawn balance in the realm of 200,000 (with a 20 percent monthly interest rate mind you). I made less then the beforementioned average of 36K after costs. People like me are not the ones deserving of an additional tax burden. To relate this to the debate, when Biden in the beginning admonishes taking advantage of deductions, but later on says his method of combating climate change will be to provide tax incentives to companies bringing their carbon footprint down my frustrations begins to peak as the only organizations who have the resources to entirely shift production or infrastructure to accommodate are the massive corporations who represent less than 2% percent.
Don't get me wrong, I think the corporate income tax is a pretty inefficient way to try and tax businesses, so I'd be fine scrapping it altogether and putting in a VAT or some other consumption tax, or just making up the lost revenue by raising individual income taxes on the wealthy, which is normally what people want from the corporate income tax anyways.
Understood. I personally don't have a solution I find internally satisfactory.
. 
