This is why I've always liked the idea of revenue-neutral progressive taxes on corporate revenue. Tax economy of scale.

Ex. Zero corporate taxes on the first 100k of revenue. For every order of magnitude above this revenue is taxed at ~1% more.

$1M in revunue -> 1%

$1B in revenue -> 4%

$100B in revenue -> 6%

Then reduce other corporate taxes to make it revenue neutral. In the most extreme case, the 1% figure or the curve could be tuned so that this is the only tax corporations pay.

This would be a massive boon for competition. Small businesses would be easier to start. Businesses may choose to stop growing: if you're making a healthy profit, don't jeopardize your margin in a perpetual struggle to amass the most power, leaving room in the market for competitors to coexist and meaningfully compete on quality.

This discourages acquisitions and encourages companies to split: if your economy of scale isn't yielding enough to justify the tax, you could spin off multiple smaller companies that would each be more profitable. The capacity for corporations to do evil is directly proportional to concentration of power. Smaller companies won't be able to afford as many lobbyists and lawyers to subvert regulation, their threats to move their businesses will be less existential for municipalities and they'll get less-sweet sweetheart deals. Being "Too Big to Fail" would be unsustainable and wasteful. The only mergers that would occur would be where the resulting economy of scale exceeds the increased tax burden.

It could also vastly simplify tax accounting, which would be a nice bonus.

Big Tech has been playing with fire warning up to democratic politicians.

Granted, America has done such a piss-poor job of actually enforcing antitrust laws already on the books that it's hard not to read into this enforcement now as the end result of someone refusing to play ball.

Two words: Peter Thiel.