You have made an empirical claim without offering any evidence. I am just saying this to remind us all that this debate should not be, at bottom, an ideological one.
Barking Spider is correct that ultimately individuals pay taxes. However, there is no reason to believe that the entire burden of a corporate profit tax is shouldered by the consumer. Shareholders and employees may share part of the burden.
Now I backpedal. Working out who pays the corporate income tax is difficult and I am aware of new wholly persuasive estimates. Allow a thought experiment. If the corporate tax is raised, shareholders would take the first hit as after-tax profits are reduced across the board.
However, at this point investment in noncorporate activities will become more profitable than investment in corporate activities; and resources will shift accordingly.
If savers decide to save less because the rate of return on their investment has declined (this, BTW, is not a trivial assumption), then investment must drop. Lower capital expenditures leads to lower labor productivity, which leads to lower wages. So workers might be burdened. This effect is offset, btw, to the extent that foreign savings flows into our little economy.
Measuring all of the above is difficult.
Some claim that corporate taxes should be lower so that “double taxation of dividends” can be offset. (Dividends are taxed once at the corporate level and a second time at the individual level. Interest payments, in contrast, are counted as a business expense at the corporate level.)
I am sympathetic. But I would oppose abolishing the corporate income tax, because that would allow certain wealthy investors to construct dubious tax shelters which postpone realization of their income indefinitely.
(And, BTW, I would match a decrease in the corporate tax with an increase in income taxes paid by high income individuals. Or perhaps I would substitute in a tax on pollution emissions (a “bad”) for a tax on capital (a “good”).)