Controversial opinion: companies with zero profits should be encouraged, not vilified.
A company that isn't profitable means every dollar that flows into the company flows out. It flows out to other companies, to payroll, to R&D, to charities. That's where the real economic engine is -- money flowing, investment happening.
And plenty of taxes come from it, too.
Companies pay taxes when they start hoarding profits instead of investing them. That's a good thing.
Companies with lots of cash on the balance sheet aren't necessarily just lazily "hoarding profits." Having cash on hand lets them nimbly acquire smaller companies, them lets them lock in lower interest rates on any debt, and helps them make it through rough spots without government aid (like the recent pandemic, for example).
I'd argue that these are also "good things". There's a reason corporate income taxes aren't tremendously popular among economists (even many economists on the left). Companies are capable of deciding how much cash to keep on their balance sheet, and any government nudges via tax policy are probably introducing some distortions. If we want to tax piles of stagnant wealth, we should tax the wealth directly: estate taxes and land value taxes don't introduce many distortions. If we want to tax companies, we should look at VATs (which are relatively non-distortionary), or perhaps heavy pigouvian taxes to offset negative externalities (e.g. a carbon tax).
A company that isn't profitable means every dollar that flows into the company flows out. It flows out to other companies, to payroll, to R&D, to charities. That's where the real economic engine is -- money flowing, investment happening.
And plenty of taxes come from it, too.
Companies pay taxes when they start hoarding profits instead of investing them. That's a good thing.