
That's a pretty broad definition of "consumption", isn't it?
Providing a service is satisfying a "consumption"? I've not heard the term used that way. Be that as it may...
Consumption generates all revenue to corporations and government siphons from this for its "revenue".
Government provides a variety of services to corporations related to:
1) Security (police, fire)
2) A legal system and a framework of laws (courts, access to them, rules, property rights)
3) Utilities (though publicly-granted monopolies to water, electricity, gas)
4) Roads and a transportation system
5) An educated workforce
6) Etc.
Why should a corporation not pay something for these services that are made possible by government - the things that make a modern corporation possible? Bill Gates and Henry Ford didn't create the world in 7 days.
Reducing corp profits nets lower tax revenue from corp side that will be made up elsewhere (read consumers).
As mentioned above, corporate income taxes are based on profits which are defined as (revenue - expenses). So the case can be made that taxes on profits can't increase expenses (since it's a separate category that's already counted). So, taxing profits won't reduce corporate profits, will it?
Cheers,
Scott.