There's a disparity that is larger than the salary and wage gap. It's the difference between the company profits generated by those who earn a salary versus those who earn a wage.

Exxon's profits per employee (before tax) $633,477 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Microsoft's profits per employee (before tax) $254,443 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Walmart's profits per employee (before tax) $9,983 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Burger King's profits per employee (before tax) $5,718 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Kroger's profits per employee (before tax) $5,639 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Circuit City's profits per employee (before tax) $441.17 http://finance.yahoo.com/

As you can see, the differences in profits per employee are extremely spread out compared to employee compensation. In no way is the average Exxon employee earning more than 1400 times the amount the average person earns in Circuit City. Taxing profits at the same rate will by far favor the latter, so charging just slightly higher rate on lower profits would not eliminate progressiveness.

A slight enough regressive taxation on company profits per employee would actually be a good thing because it would reward the company for increasing a worker's economic efficiency while still being progressive with personal income. I can see this sort of tax as being supported by all parties:

Libertarians - The more you make, the more you get to keep.
Republicans - Favors profit making motives and big business.
Democrats - Taxes the rich more than the poor.

Care to include what the profit margins are for all those companies?

Seems to me that if a) you sell more product, b) you get more profit. ExxonMobile could charge 1% profit on their products, and still eclipse the likes of Circuit City. Your entire premise is flawed.

Exxon's profits per employee (before tax) $633,477 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Income Before Tax = 17.8% of Total Revenue
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares = 10.5% of Total Revenue

Microsoft's profits per employee (before tax) $254,443 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Income Before Tax = 39.4% of Total Revenue
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares = 27.6% of Total Revenue

Walmart's profits per employee (before tax) $9,983 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Income Before Tax = 5.44% of Total Revenue
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares = 3.24%

Burger King's profits per employee (before tax) $5,718 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Income Before Tax = 9.98% of Total Revenue
New Income Applicable To Common Shares = 6.62% of Total Revenue

Kroger's profits per employee (before tax) $5,639 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Income Before Tax = 2.64% of Total Revenue
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares = 1.69% of Total Revenue

Circuit City's profits per employee (before tax) $441.17 http://finance.yahoo.com/
Income Before Tax = 0.0164% of Total Revenue
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares = -0.000666% of Total Revenue

My premise was stated explicitly, "There's a disparity that is larger than the salary and wage gap. It's the difference between the company profits generated by those who earn a salary versus those who earn a wage." This is the statement you call "entirely flawed".

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but an easy way to get around this is to hire more "workers".
Like the Lithuanians and Latvians do. Hire someone to "pore the coffee" or "watch the wheels". And profit per employee reduced.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

Another factor not mentioned is payroll rates.

A highly skilled computer programmer earns much more than some minimum-wage checker at Kroger So 100 programmers might earn the same as 500 supermarket kids.

Right on.

And you don't see Microsoft employees usually being paid 50 times as much, but get paid more like 10 times as much. The profits each of them produce are about twice how much they are paid while for Kroger employees, each of them produces a profits that equals about half of their pay. A flat corporate tax, then would be like taxing the pay of Microsoft employees four times the rate of Kroger employees. So a slightly regressive corporate tax approximates a progressive income tax.

http://www.vault.com/companies/compa...product_id=342
http://www.vault.com/companies/compa...13&type=salary

Attached Images

testing123.gif (14.1 KB, 2 views)

There is a fundamental property of economics:
You can not tax a corporation.

You may tax their customers.
You may tax their employees.
You may tax their stockholders.
You can not tax a corporation.

They will simply pass the tax along to one of the three individuals.
Which group of individuals do you see this tax passed on to?

__________________
There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Basically it is proposed that earnings before shareholder distributions are taxed.

Anyone who receives part of the earnings is taxed. This includes every shareholder, whether that person is a customer, employee, or simply third party.

But the amount of earnings is determined by revenues and expenses so:
The customers determine up to how much can be taxed.
The employees determine how much of that potential tax can be eliminated.