The Tax Votes in Salem: Who are the YOYOs and who are the WITTs?
Chuck Sheketoff
Much is being written about the votes coming up this week to add fairness to the personal income tax (HB 2649) and the corporate income tax (HB 3405) to help minimize cuts to public structures that serve Oregon’s most vulnerable.
Some in the media and legislature paint the debate as one between Republicans and Democrats.
Some business interests and editorial writers frame it as a debate between those who support our economy and those who don’t (I have yet to meet anyone who doesn’t want our economy to improve), between those who support “small business” and those who don’t (I haven’t met anyone who’s against small businesses), and between those who think we should have a temporary tax hike and those who think we need a permanent tax hike (I see it as temporary improvement in fairness versus permanent improvement in fairness).
All those dichotomies miss the boat. The votes on the tax bills will separate the YOYOs from the WITTs.
The terms YOYOs and WITTs were coined by economist Jared Bernstein, previously of the Economic Policy Institute and now Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economist and chief of staff for the White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families. In his book All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy, Bernstein noted the difference between those who think “you’re on your own” (YOYO) and those who think “we’re in this together” (WITT) when it comes to succeeding in the economy.
YOYOs represent an approach where individualism rules when it comes to matters of government, opportunity and the economy. Policies the YOYOs espouse shift the responsibility for paying for public structures such as education, health care and public safety away from corporations and the wealthy onto ordinary individuals and their families.
YOYOs are content that big corporations today pay about half of the income taxes, as a share of their profits, they paid in Oregon a generation ago. YOYOs don’t seem to mind or offer a solution to the problem that the wealthiest Oregonians pay less in state and local taxes as a share of their income than low- and middle-income Oregonians. YOYOs deride a revenue plan that minimizes cuts to vital public services because it contains some permanent provisions that add fairness to our tax system. To the extent they support only temporary changes, YOYOs apparently think improving fairness should be temporary.
WITTs, on the other hand, have what Bernstein describes as the “belief that we can wield the tools of government to build a more just society, one that preserves individualist values while ensuring that the prosperity we generate is equitably shared.” WITTs look at our economic crisis and state revenue shortfall and know that the cuts in public services will wreak havoc. WITTs believe that cuts to public services that help low- and moderate-income Oregonians must be minimized and that more resources are needed to meet Oregonians’ challenges, improve our workforce and reduce social and economic inequality. WITTs think improving tax fairness should not be a temporary endeavor.
WITTs believe that we need the economic pie to grow and that everyone who helps bake it, not just those in penthouses and corporate board rooms, should get bigger slices with the expansion. That’s why WITTs look to the large corporations and wealthy individuals who are prospering even in this severe economic crisis to contribute more to the common good.
WITTs are looking for fixes to an unfair system where everyone is in it together, not just today and tomorrow, but well into the future. WITTs don’t think fairness can or should be achieved only temporarily.
When the votes come in later this week, don’t get caught up with which Democrats and Republicans voted for the tax bills. Ignore those who hold out red herrings like “pro-small business” and “hurt the economy.” Don’t buy the claims that a plan would be good if it weren’t permanent.
The votes on HB 2649 and HB 3404 will show us who are the WITTs and who are the YOYOs in the Oregon legislature and the lobby.
Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 8, '09
Chuck,
Great column.
What's saddest of all is to see those working people, including even the underemployed and the unemployed, who have succumbed to and internalized the YOYO ideology that is pushed everywhere in the corporate media, often glamorized as "pioneer spirit," etc. Sadly, we saw a lot of those people sent out on tea party day, and I hope they are waking up.
The huge transnational corporations, having succeeded in monopolizing the world's resources, commerce, and media, can be countered only by a democratic majority that is informed, organized, and moving toward cooperative goals.
I do believe that today more and more people are coming to see that it is the interlocking monopolies that are sending out the message that the rest of us must go it alone. And that includes young people coming to see it, seeming less and less detached and deceived. Now let's work toward some good outcomes.
Jun 8, '09
WITTs, on the other hand, have what Bernstein describes as the “belief that we can wield the tools of government to build a more just society, one that preserves individualist values while ensuring that the prosperity we generate is equitably shared.”
Just curious, do you believe in: Equality of opportunity or Equality of outcome?
4:45 p.m.
Jun 8, '09
MP, that's another red herring. Don't be silly - is there anyone who really believes in equality of outcomes? Outside of a freshman dorm room, that is?
Your question might be interesting if we had actually succeeded in creating equality of opportunity. But we are a long, long, long way from that.
I grew up in Lake Oswego. I have no doubt that I had more opportunities growing up than did the kids growing up in South Central Los Angeles.
I find it amusing that the people who go on and on about how "equality of opportunity" ought to be our lodestar adamantly oppose the estate tax - the very tax that helps minimize the effects of hereditary wealth and improve, ever-so-slightly, the equality of opporunity.
A red herring if ever there was one.
Jun 8, '09
The only people who don't oppose a confiscatory estate tax are those who have nothing to hand on as their legacy save for debt.
Jun 8, '09
Boats,
Tell that to Warren Buffet, one who thinks the estate tax should be made stronger.
Jun 8, '09
A couple more thing....WITTs believe that the rich are people who make more then than they do. That the estate tax credit should be set at a little more than what Mom and Dad are worth. (Just make sure we get their assets into trust a couple years before they get them into a nursing home so other people can provide a just society for Mom and Dad) WITTs beleive we could fund all worthy government projects if we just taxed the corporations more.
But ask WITTs what they think about taxing employer paid health benefits. That's a small tax increase in order to provide a just society. Sounds very WITTonian.
Reality check: There's actually little difference when it comes to the tax philosophies of the "rich" or the "ordinary people". Its mostly self centered. Most people, rich and "ordinary" (though maybe not most of Blue Oregon readers, since we are extra-ordinary) think they're being taxed too much.
So don't get down on wealthier people for being like "ordinary" people. And by the way, I've met a lot of rich people who seem pretty ordinary.
Most of the time I really like and agree with Mr. Sheketoff's posts because they deal in facts that support progressive policies. This ain't one. Its a mishmash of psyche 101 that labels people of certain economic viewpoints as cruel. Not a way to win friends and influence people.
YOYO's are apparently heartless, uncaring, and don't recognize any social responsibility. WITT's want to preserve individual values while sharing the wealth that we all help create in an equitable manner. How nice, how charitable, yet still preserving the American spirit.
I HATE THOSE YOYOs.
Jun 8, '09
Boats,
Tell that to Warren Buffet, one who thinks the estate tax should be made stronger.
Yes. As we are all aware, exceptions make the rule.
Most people with assets would rather have their heirs piss it all away than have some nimrod like Charles Rangel piss it away for them.
Jun 8, '09
Don't be silly - is there anyone who really believes in equality of outcomes? Outside of a freshman dorm room, that is?
Would the World Bank be considered silly?
On April 15 and 16, 2008, the 2008 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) Network Conference was held at World Bank Headquarters in Washington, D.C., to discuss the theme, “Inclusive and Sustainable Growth”. The Conference included more than 25 sessions on a variety of topics, such as the Bank’s economic policy, climate change, and good governance, among many others.
The session entitled, “Equality of Opportunity in the Latin America and the Caribbean” was held on April 16th, 2008. Marcelo Giugale, Director, Latin America and Caribbean Poverty Reduction, World Bank, suggested that social policy should be examined in terms of equality of opportunities versus equality of outcomes.
Jun 9, '09
Kari, I have to respectfully disagree with your views of the estate tax. I am the only child of an entrepreneurial family and my father became quite affluent in the 70s and 80s. He worked 16 hours a day and I helped care for my blind, brain injured mother, which I still do today (as a weekend warrior between Portland and LA). The combined cost of time with my father growing up, the care I assumed for my mother at the expense of a normal childhood, and the loss of income whenever I now miss work (I've had no benefits since january) to run down to LA and be medical advocate makes me fiercely resentful of grabby government entities that probably look on me as an heiress. I do not think I suffer a sense of entitlement; it is their money and I hope they are enjoying it with gusto and will do so until the end of their lives. My story is not unique. Most dedicated children play an important supporting role in their family that goes beyond conceptualizing a successful business and the government has no business trying to quantify that.
Jun 9, '09
Well if these WITT really believe we're all in it together then I'm guessing that they want the 40% of the population who doesn't pay income taxes to start paying their share?'
Or is the idea that we'll tax the rich even more in order to get more free loaders on board? Don't the rich already pay about 90% of the income taxes collected? What exactly is so WITT about that?
[Personal attack deleted -editor.]
Jun 10, '09
Andy, about this:
"the 40% of the population who doesn't pay income taxes to start paying their share?'"
Are you saying that the part time fast food worker should be sending a check in to the Oregon Dept. of Revenue because even min. wage workers should pay income taxes and not expect a refund?
Good luck selling that idea to voters!
Jun 10, '09
Well of course the 40% of the population that free load off of the other won't vote for ending that system! Pigs don't climb down out of the trough unless they are forced to.
The funny thing is that Chuck is trying to lecture us about YOYO and WITT but he is clueless about the actual facts. When a small percentage of the population pays most of the income taxes that isn't a good example of WITT. Yet Chuck wants that small minority to pay even more taxes so that even more people can free load.
The basic problem is that the middle class wants more benefits than they are willing to pay for. The middle class does not want to be in it together, they want someone else (the rich) to subsidize their schools, their healthcare and their public transportation.
<h2>The real issue isn't YOYO or WITT, it is OPM. (other people's money). Chuck loves to grab other people's money rather than contribute his own.</h2>