Corporations employ many millions of people. That much of the simplistic view is true. Corporate motives are to maximize return on investment for their investors (owners and stockholders) - in a word, profit. Labor is a cost on the financial ledger. CEO's are under great pressure to minimize that cost. The rise of labor unions raised labor costs. Corporations fought back with union-busting, in the beginning with violence. When the government labor department made such acts a crime, the corporations fought back with propaganda, legal action, and lobbying for right to work laws and Federal and State level regulations. They won in several states.
Corporations also incentiveized upper corporate management with huge
bonuses to increase profit. As the propaganda against unions took hold
in the culture, and non-violent union suppression tactics succeeded,
unions were reduced and made sufficiently ineffective that wages pretty
much stopped rising. Lobbying prevented raising the federal
minimum wage adequately, keeping the majority of workers at or below the
of buying power, but that was still too much for the corporate profit
motive. First there was moving production offshore and outsourcing to
take advantage of lower labor costs. Not just labor was
affected. So much manufacturing went offshore that the US moved
from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. Coaching and
dance teaching is just once such. Then there was automation and, more
robotics and artificial intelligence, both costing technological jobs
and increasing profits. Meanwhile, the last 37* years left workers
with lower stagnant buying power and lower paying jobs. Even the
lower paying service and high skill jobs have been "outsourced" to
foreign workers brought in by temporary work visas.
In this environment, how do tax changes influence corporate decisions? Corporations have working capital - cash - to cover operations, and the surplus is invested in financial instruments.
When taxes go up, corporate incentive is to avoid paying the tax by
finding deductible expenses. The incentive to reduce the tax
burden is to find more ways to avoid the taxes. It's a good time
to invest some of the capital, in expansion, starting new businesses,
and hiring more employees. These are deductible expenses, on which no tax is paid. The net result is decreasing the tax
burden. The benefit is increased production and expansion, which
grows the business, sells more, and boosts the economy. This shows up in
the economy as lowered employment, increased worker spending, and, did I
mention, boosts the economy. Clinton raised taxes, resulting in
eliminating the deficit and creating a booming economy that produced a government budget surplus.
When taxes go down, Corporate incentive is to take advantage of the lower tax cost on the interest on the working capital and surplus. Lower taxes means immediate increase in the after tax return on investment on the working capital and surplus. With the historically fickle government on taxes, the incentive is to take advantage of the lower taxes "while the getting is good". Who knows when Congress will change their minds and increase the taxes again? To take advantage of this "windfall" the corporate incentive is to wait on hiring and expansion - and allow the surplus to grow. Put on a hiring freeze and a hold on expansion. This shows up as increased unemployment in the very next year, decreased worker spending, and, did I mention, slowing the economy. Ronald Reagan's first tax cut, from 70% to 69.25% was followed by .2% increase in unemployment. The next year he cut taxes from 69.25% to 50%, which was followed by a full 2.4% unemployment increase, and began the recession. Bush took Clinton's surplus and gave it away in another tax cut, causing another recession.
No government tax cut has every paid for itself, so every tax cut has increased the national debt*. Moreover, when taxes were raised, and the deficit turned into a surplus, the conservative Republicans have given that away to those whose taxes rates are highest, increasing the massive wealth and income disparity.