Comment by zbentley
> why not tax the military?
Narrowly: because they're a utility funded by taxes, not an independent entity benefiting from tax-funded infrastructure. Having a military for defense/power projection/whatnot is one of the infrastructural benefits of being part of a state (and one of the things that a company that grows in that state "owes" the state tax money for--whether that's owed on growth or just capital).
Like, do I personally think my country's military should have a vastly different funding profile, incentives, and behavior? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fundamental dynamic: $state provides $thing (security, clean water, cheap gas, whatever) that makes being in $state good for many people, people who do well financially within $state owe it money back on the basis that their doing well is at least partially a result of $thing being available to them.
> Any investor or entrepreneur would be a fool to invest in making a big company.
Not true. A growth tax need not be a 100% tax, so growth would still be an advantageous thing to do. Many countries have tax brackets today; that doesn't discourage people from getting rich.
What I'm saying is that the high value of a large company is not "affluence".
An ugly military troop transport might have the same cost / value as a desirable sports car. Not to mention other types of military equipment. But we wouldn't think about that as affluence. Because we know that military equipment are tools with a purpose.
The same for the value which is locked in within any giant corporation. Of course a large industry is going to have expensive equipment and lots of other investments, which nobody thinks of as "affluence". That is exactly what the money of billionaires is. They own a share of all that ugly equipment, which has no use outside of a big company.