Food, healthcare, housing, land, education, etc. are almost always taxed differently from everything else, so changing the corporate tax reality should have no effect there. Also note that healthcare and food, (food especially) are heavily subsidized by the government already. While I personally believe that distorts the market and should probably stop, even in some doomsday tax-burden-shift scenario that you fear, a bump to subsidies could resolve the worst effects.
Really this is just like any other situation where the government due to structural weaknesses can't set/enforce policy effectively. Just like in the Prohibition or the War on Drugs, neither of which the government was equipped to make happen, the solution is to remove the problematic policies and take a more realistic approach.
>healthcare and food, (food especially) are heavily subsidized by the government already. While I personally believe that distorts the market and should probably stop
If you want to see riots in the streets because people literally can't afford food and healthcare, yeah, sure, go for it.
This is the big problem that has accumulated after generations of government-intervention and fiddling with the market.
The price of labour is now artificially cheap because the price of food is not taken into account due to subsidies and foodstamp programs, as well as the huge labor/population supply that such policies have created. There is no way the market could peacefully absorb such a massive distortion and so if we were to ever attempt it, no doubt there would be countless individuals chanting "see, we told you the market isn't the solution". These things need to be phased out over generations so as to avoid massive starvation and riots by the poor.
Obamacare is quite recent, and Medicaid has only been available in all states since 1982. There are some tax deductions for medical care, though those usually only apply to middle-class workers with benefits anyways.
Which healthcare subsidy would result in riots in the streets?
Also keep in mind that the US has been without the 16th amendment longer than it has been with it, so anything based off of an income tax must not be intrinsically important enough to automatically result in street riots. Though of course an irresponsible and sudden withdrawal could certainly cause problems.
> Which healthcare subsidy would result in riots in the streets?
Off the top of my head, Medicare and veteran's health benefits. I don't know that ceasing flexible spending accounts (money put in an account, pre-tax, just for medical/health expenses) and the tax deduction for medical expenses above a certain amount would be riot-worthy.
The subsidies probably overall increase the cost that the consumer is paying. The federal government pays farmers to not plant or reduce the overall supply thus leading to higher prices. There tend to be more tariffs in the US on food stuffs as well which prevents cheaper imports that would benefit the consumer.
One item in consumer's favor is that food items are usually exempt or treated at a lower sales tax rate.
Really this is just like any other situation where the government due to structural weaknesses can't set/enforce policy effectively. Just like in the Prohibition or the War on Drugs, neither of which the government was equipped to make happen, the solution is to remove the problematic policies and take a more realistic approach.