Wouldn't it be more useful to measure corporate tax collection per capita? Keeping pace with inflation is only meaningful if the population is static.
From your numbers and the 1960 census, it looks like we were collecting $944/pp (2013 dollars). Accounting for today's population, we're now collecting $771/pp.
Assuming you buy the idea at all that corporate taxes have an obligation to feed the poor, it certainly does look like the supporting-power of said taxes have decreased over time.
I think trying to talk about corporate tax collection per capita makes the discussion much more complex because we have to consider a lot of other questions (such as determining the impact of corporations on median standard of living).
But let me take a stab at it anyway.
I think its fair to say that the GP's concern is not collections per capita, but collections per person in poverty. In the 1950s, there were 39.5M people in poverty [1], while in 2012 there were 46.2M people in poverty [2]. So in 2012 dollars, we were spending ~$4500 per person in poverty in 1950, while today we spend ~$5200 per person in poverty.
Of course, you can play with the start and end dates to make the trend look different. But the fact is, by just about any measure, corporations paying quite a bit in taxes.
From your numbers and the 1960 census, it looks like we were collecting $944/pp (2013 dollars). Accounting for today's population, we're now collecting $771/pp.
Assuming you buy the idea at all that corporate taxes have an obligation to feed the poor, it certainly does look like the supporting-power of said taxes have decreased over time.