>>What can we do?
It's a tough question. The tendency is to react superficially: Moralizing reactions, emotional reaction, first principles takes. The way tax actually works is via accounting "standards," tax law and corporation law... across multiple jurisdictions. A thousand-detail complex , where morals, emotions and first principles are literally meaningless. Actual meaning can only be derived with scenario plans and spreadsheets. Words like "profit," "company," "revenue" and such don't have inherent meanings, in that world. They're just objects with associated rules.
The pro-corporate side of this debate (debate is the wrong word) deals entirely in the latter terms. Terms that the majority of journalists and politicians can't work with. They tend to win.
When the other side does consider the reality of mess, they tend to conclude radical/unrealistic conclusions like "throw everything out and start from scratch."
At this point, complexity is hardened by international agreements and trade rules.
IMO the actual place to start is corporation law, not tax law. If entities can own other entities, or part thereof in an endless cascade...words like "tax rate" have no meaning.
Another, more radical approach is rethinking the idea of public wealth. The currently ongoing collapse of monetarism is, perhaps, an opportunity. Tax public companies x% of their shares per year. Hold, to avoid price deflation. Offload shares as part of macroeconomic/monetary policy (ie, when we run deficits), to avoid inflationary scenarios such as the current one.
I would take the same approach for wealth taxes. Capital gains, property, etc. Tax x% of current market value annually, not income or realized gains. It won't be perfect, but everything gets marked to market eventually.