And to add to this:
Raising the taxes on the rich is a terrible idea. The rich own all of the businesses that drive our economy. If Obama raises taxes for them, do you think they are going to keep their business here? No, they aren't. They are going to outsource, cut jobs, cut wages/benefits, etc to make up the losses. Them doing that equals less jobs for us Americans, pay cuts, etc., and will do nothing but lead to the further collapse of our economy.
For those that actually paid attention, Reagan's trickle down policies actually worked. Fatten the pockets of the people that own the business that run this country's economy, and those people dump more money into their business, which in turn leads to more jobs, better paying jobs, better equipment, better working conditions, etc. It worked, and it worked well. It was Clinton's administration that nullified them, and put our country where it is today.
This is one thing that I could understand but never fully agree with when thinking about politics/economics.. Ok, less taxes = more profit = more incentive for a business to set up shop/stay in an area, it's hard to argue against that b/c in itself is obviously true. But there is a hell of a lot more to the process than that that people don't seem to always acknowledge.
My immediate thought/response when I see something like "If Obama raises taxes for them, do you think they are going to keep their business here?" is, how many of them actually have a choice? ex: If walmart has to pay an extra $x amount in taxes are they going to move all their stores to Mexico? Obviously not b/c a lot of the walmart company is local business based on the local market and is simply not outsourceable.
But then there are those who's jobs aren't quite based on a local market. If a Walmart in Mexico can take it's directives from a corprate office in the US, couldn't corprate office just as well be located in Guatamala where they might have to pay less in taxes? So why wouldn't it move there or some other country with lower taxes? Well, if California were to raise taxes on local businesses and Alaska to abolish all of it's taxes would silicon valley just start packing up and move north? I'd doubt it. Along the same lines while a lot of hollywood production takes place in Vancover now b/c it's cheaper to do business there I don't think many (if any) studios or hollywood elites (highly payed actors, writers, producers, directors etc.) have made the move yet. So I can only think that some business is also limited by simply the localization/supply of it's important people. It would make sense that if the board of directors can't speak chinese that the corporate office won't move to China. If the supply of electronic engineers, designers, software programmers etc. in Estonia is lacking, tech companies aren't going to move there no matter how much they'll save on taxes.
Goods are more easily outsourced, but then I'd have to wonder how much of it that can be outsourced hasn't already been. The purpose of business is to make money afterall... I find it hard to believe that if a company can save $1million a year in operating costs by having their product made in China and shipping it back that they would wait until the government starts charging them an extra an extra $500k/yr before doing so. Plus then you also get free market influences, people who want to buy American made/produced etc.
Now don't get me wrong, to think that anything can happen with out consequence is stupid, if a tax hike puts a company in a hard place they have to react. Even if they remain in a good place after the hike they still have a right to react but to talk about it like they're holding all the cards seems either narrow minded, over dramatic, or a case of fear pushing reason out of the picture.
To me it seems like a large chunk of American bussiness is there b/c of the huge market or b/c the people in / important to the business are & like it there and I'd question how likely
that is to be changed by tax hikes unless they come to really stupid levels (which I don't believe to be truely possible).
Like with most arguements I belive there tends to be less susbtance in the far ends than in the middle. In this case that is, I believe both sides need ea. other and to argue for one end at the expense of the other with out considering the current state of balance between the two seems silly. Offhand I'd imagine the vast majority of Americans do not make $250k+ a year and that that same vast majority of Americans are the market that most companies will sell their goods and services to and make their money off of. Putting money in the high end can trickle down to the low but shouldn't it also be able to go up? If the middleclass has more money aren't they likely to spend or invest it (even if they save it, unless they're hoarding it under their matresses isn't the bank they put it into likely to invest it). Don't those actions in turn mean more money for the business end?