So you want to lower rates by raising them? And what is your definition of rich? Just what do you think gives you or the government the right to the fruits of anothers labor at a rate more than everyone else just because you want it?
What I'd like to do is cut spending. Barring that, taxes need to be collected to pay for that spending, hopefully in amounts large enough not to leave my kids in the hole of paying for your and my generation's profligacy.
So how do we raise that revenue? Are we talking philosophically, or in the real world? Philosophically, I prefer a flat personal income tax, with limited deductions, coupled with a judicious program of tariffs - and no corporate income taxes at all. But in the real world, we have a progressive tax structure with the highest corporate income tax rates in the western world. And partisans on both sides who won't cut deals unless there's something in it for them.
So how do we get to where we need to be, which IMO is a tax structure that satisfies our revenue needs while encouraging economic growth? Well, to my mind that best way of stimulating growth HERE AND NOW is to stop penalizing successful companies with a far-too-high corporate income tax. As others have correctly pointed out, it's just a conduit for higher consumer prices. But if the revenues from the corporate income tax are taken off the board (and assuming arguendo that spending can't be cut), what makes up for them? Who do you tax instead?
Why not the rich? Those who are productive can incorporate. Those who aren't, let 'em dig deeper. What matters to me is the growth that can be triggered by cutting corporate taxes. That will benefit both you and me.
Can we engage in an honest discussion for once? Just once? What taxes would YOU raise to make up the revenue lost by eliminating or reducing the corporate income tax?
