Not at all, because the wealthy will simply leave their wealth in the corporations. The corporation will own the luxury holiday villa, the corporation will own their huge yacht, the corporation will pay expenses, etc etc etc.
This will only ensure that the 1% will pay even less while placing greater burdens on the lower income brackets
Bearing in mind, of course, that the top 10% earn 15% of all income and pay 24% of all federal taxes. But I digress...
I'm not sure leaving wealth in corporations is necessarily bad. That means the owners of the company, not the employees (including the executives) have it. Since many people are upset that execs get oversized salaries, is that bad?
Anyway, the way we deal with that today is the fat cat gets taxed on the fair market value of the fringe benefit. If you get a company car, you get taxed on the value of a lease on that car. Same for the ski chalet in the Alps. I'm pretty sure this is not that much of a problem. As many people have pointed out, there's only so much a rich person can consume so this sorta naturally limits their compensation.
And how does a small store owner compete, we already see how Amazon has driven most bookshops out of business. The corporations will soon be able to own everything.
I'm not sure they do. Or maybe they're the next SnapChat and make a zillion dollars, God only knows why.
And who owns the corporation? The investors. Who are they? Well, they could be anyone with a 401k or a pension. Or an employee. Or an executive. Or a C-level officer. Or a venture capitalist.
Tell me, what is the difference between the 1% being royalty , with them owning the land, the businesses, the wealth, and a corporation doing the same. You can't vote either of them out. The end results are the same.
One big difference is the 1% can lose their wealth (are we talking wealth or income here?). Just ask anyone who invested in Kodak, Borders, or Sears. And while the 1% can try to get laws passed, we've seen money doesn't necessarily equal electoral victory.