Corporations should pay more tax to fund public goods.

Daily Debate #626: "Corporations should pay more tax to fund public goods.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Bernie Sanders.

Corporations should be paying more tax to find public goods for both the wellbeing of the public and the nation, and to protect smaller corporations there should be limit, such as an corporation exceeding xxx limit of earnings, should be asked to pay tax.

You're actually arguing for the opposite of what you claim. A tiered tax that exempts smaller firms doesn't protect them, it punishes them by forcing their growth to stall. Companies scale or die. Why should a firm stop expanding to avoid your tax bracket instead of just paying it and reinvesting profits? What actually protects small business, competitively speaking, is lower corporate rates across the board.

It isn't to stop firms from expanding and neither will it do that. Small startups can be exempt from it, until they reach a comfortable earning position to expand globally. The tax rates should be small and as they expand more and more into the international boundaries, it should get higher bit by bit, not enough for them to see it as a threat but as a way to contribute to the public, and as a collective tax money from many global organisations will find many other sectors of a nation

You're describing a graduated system, which sounds reasonable until you ask the hard question: who decides when a firm has reached that "comfortable" threshold, and what stops them from restructuring to stay below it? Companies already use transfer pricing and subsidiary games to minimize taxes. Your tiered approach just adds another threshold to game. The real issue is enforcement, not rate design. How do you prevent a $5 billion firm from splitting into five $1 billion entities to dodge your escalating rates?

Giving beneficial policies along with those tax rates will encourage companies to continue expanding, such as less import and export fees, purchase credit from the government and other appealing benefits that they will find more beneficial to them than avoiding it. This way, they will be both encouraged to expand even if it means paying a small % of tax, for all companies, and this way even smaller startups will try to reach that level to earn those benefits.

You're bribing them to comply instead of enforcing actual tax policy—that's backwards. If the benefits outweigh the taxes, you've just created corporate welfare dressed as incentives. Why would a rational firm choose expansion under your system when it can simply lobby for better benefits? You've handed them negotiating power. The real problem: you're assuming companies want to expand for expansion's sake. Many don't. They optimize for profit, not growth. Your system rewards size, not efficiency. How do you prevent monopolies from consolidating to capture all your incentives?