Populists are found insisting that we "put people before corporations"; what does this mean? That any time a group of people gets together to form a corporation, they lose their humanity? The corporation has a separate legal existence, but all of its interests are tied up with people -- stock holders, bond holders, customers, employees. If a homeowner causes harm to a corporation, the corporation -- the people of the corporation -- have as much right to compensation as if they were not incorporated.
If a corporation is polluting the environment, it is the pollution, not the fact of incorporation, that is the evil. "Put people before corporations" isn't appropos, but I suppose "internalize externalities" is a bit harder to chant.
The dumbest variant of this I've heard is where Michael Moore notes that the word "shareholder" isn't in the Constitution, but the word "people" is. That's great; if my cat buys shares of Phillip Morris, I'll let her know she's still a cat. (Whether Mr. Moore is willing to use the founding fathers as authorities on other issues is an open question.)
Profits, again, go to people. They may go through corporations, in which case the government absconds with 35% of it before it even becomes taxable income for the individual owners of the enterprise, but the only reason anyone is interested in the profits is because they trickle back to them. If an enterprise wouldn't take place without my money -- or not to the same extent -- then morally I'm entitled to proceeds if I contribute my money, and practically I'm more likely to enable it to happen if I will get proceeds, especially if there's some risk involved.
It is not right that debtors should be esteemed above creditors. It is not right that those who plan for their future are castigated by short-sighted overconsumers.