To be honest, I don't understand the mindset behind trickle-down economics. If I cut Walmart's taxes, why would that implore them to open new stores or create more jobs? It seems to be based on the idea that "they have more money available!"; however, while I'm not an expert on this subject, that doesn't seem to be how a good business works. A good business will attempt to push for both short-term and long-term growth potential, and if adding the stores or jobs is beneficial, why wouldn't they just do it without tax breaks? They likely would.
Now, if you attempted to tie the tax cuts specifically to things such as job creation, then you might have something more useful. Albeit, we've seen companies abuse the concept of tax breaks to make local and state municipalities essentially fund buildings and infrastructure for multi-billion-dollar companies. (This has been seen in sports stadiums, manufacturing plants, etc.) In the end, the expenditure per-job (in lost tax revenue) ends up being quite high, and I'd be heavily worried about how that skews far more toward short-term benefits for the government (i.e., the influx of workers) without a focus on the long-term cost (i.e., infrastructure, housing, etc. to support the influx).
Also, if you focused more on small business, then I think you also have a more viable plan. I specifically mention small businesses, because they tend to have far less capital at play, and the idea of opening a new location or hiring more employees tends to put far more strain on the business. Although, given that small businesses don't exactly have the huge lobbying power of the giant corporations, I highly doubt you're going to see nearly as much of a push for them.