So I think it’s neutral for wealth inequality, since an individual getting $1B in income or a corporation getting $1B in income to a single individual is the same. Or deferring income with trusts, credits, etc.

I think for wealth inequality, the goal is to have more individuals with greater wealth, so this doesn’t seem to affect the number of people impacted.

In any case I find that any appeals to decrease wealth inequality is ultimately no more than greedy appeals to take from the responsible and give to the irresponsible, so I've long since stopped seeing that as a legitimate argument.

My reasoning is that people prefer direct compensation over perks, and shareholders can’t get perks.

With a high tax rate, there’s more of a benefit to pay deductible benefits rather than bonuses. With lower tax rate, the incentive goes away so corps can just pay directly.

The goal is to get max tax revenue, so whatever equilibrium results in the highest government revenue is preferred. So the comparison should be what brings in the most revenue.