Supreme Court Hears Mississippi Abortion Case

With all eyes on the Supreme Court today, the gang starts with an explainer of ...

By

With all eyes on the Supreme Court today, the gang starts with an explainer of what is happening in the oral arguments of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. What’s at stake? Is it as monumental as some are making it out to be? When might we know how the court rules? Plus, a new COVID variant emerges, Russia builds up its military presence near Ukraine, and blue states fail to live up to their own ideals.

Show Notes:

–SCOTUSblog on Dobbs v. Jackson

–TMD on Omicron

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (36)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. John Cuyle

    Just got around to listening to this now. Washington's tax situation is complicated. Sarah's question, "Why not fix this, it seems easy?" is a reasonable question as in any other state it probably would be easy to fix. Washington, however, is unique in that we have both a constitutional provision requiring that property taxes be equally apportioned and a longstanding state supreme court ruling that all forms of income are property. Washington's supreme court gets a lot of things wrong, but this is one instance in which they stand almost alone in recognizing that money you possess does not cease to be property just because you came into possession of it recently. Washington CANNOT institute a progressive income tax without amending the state constitution or the Washington supreme court denying reality the way other states have. As a result, Washington has no income taxes because progressives are only in favor of an income tax if it is unfairly apportioned.

    That leaves Washington with only fairly apportioned property taxes and sales taxes. With respect to sales taxes, the problem is the studies. They are flawed. They fail to take into account time shifting effects of savings and borrowing. If you borrow money now and spend it now, the borrowed money is not income, but the spending is taxed immediately. You do not pay sales tax on loan repayments, so if you buy a car this year and pay it off over five years, the effect is to make sales taxes look regressive. Likewise, if you save money while employed and earing money, then retire, then spend money after you have retired and show no income, that makes sales taxes look regressive. No effort is made to control for these effects in studies on taxation flatness, so sales taxes show up as regressive even though, in reality, they are always very slightly progressive (low income people spend a disproportionate amount of their income on tax exempt items.)

    Collapse
    1. John Cuyle

      Incidentally, the WA supreme court case I mention above is a 1933 case, Culliton v. Chase. Progressives have been trying to institute an income tax (illegally, by passing them even though the supreme court has already ruled they are illegal) for decades.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    The usual suspects are back together again for this episode. Keeping us listeners on our toes.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Tony Martyr

    Hahahaha-hahaha...Sarah used the wrong word, Sarah used the wrong word!...hahahahahaha...multiple times....and everyone was too scared to correct her!.....hahahahahaha....best. podcast. moment. ever.....hahahahaha

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      It was just a test of my powers;)

      Collapse
  4. TallCon

    Am I not listening to the right podcasts with Jonah? Because I haven't heard him explain how people pronounce "omicron" in the Star Trek episode "This Side of Paradise". Everyone pronounces it "ohm - i - cron" except Kirk who says "ahm - i - cron". (Shatner also says sabotage as "sab - ah - taaj" and Orion as "oh ree on").

    Collapse
  5. Randolph Mitchell

    Sarah muddied the already murky COVID waters with her apparent conflation of virulence and transmissibility. Otherwise, this podcast was hitting on all cylinders!

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Andrew Mitchell

    David, I love ypur point about the influx of people moving to red states. We are buying a home in Tennesse for many of the reasons that you stated. However, my question is whether the people moving from Blue states are self-aware of the reasoning that you state? Or will a sustained influx of these people just turn the states with more freedoms into the same mess that they left?

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Dom Corriveau

    Omicron is the Greek letter that makes the short "o" sound; Omega makes the long "o"... which just made me realize that depending on how you transliterate, the AO podcast could be ΑΟ or ΑΩ. Not to add fuel to the flagship fire (or make David nervous about approaching blasphemy), but might there be some kind of Freudian suggestion that AO is the Alpha and Omega of podcasts in that acronym?

    Collapse
  8. James Bennett

    A significant thing Sarah is missing is that the Washington State constitution forbids the income tax and Democrats don't have the votes to amend it. They have tried to make end-runs around it numerous times, but failed.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Steve Gordon

      It actually doesn't forbid an income tax, it forbids a non-uniform tax on property. They could impose a 1% or 25% tax on income (considered property), but it has to be a FLAT tax across the board. Of course Dems here in WA would never do that because it doesn't fit their "punish the rich" class narrative.

      The regressivity narrative is BS as well, coming from a flawed study that mistreats consumption and understates the B&O tax impacts.

      Collapse
      1. JA

        This is right, and it's a point missed in the podcast but also in Johnny Harris' original video. He should have picked up on that nuance in his original reporting.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Young Riprock

      It’s also the initiative system. The citizens of Washington have time and time again been put to vote on income tax and they always say no. As liberal as the state is, literally no one believes that Democrats would make a switch from sales tax to income tax revenue neutral. It’s always viewed as a tax grab.

      Collapse
      1. Ingenero.lux

        And thank heavens for that. I moved here from California - lost the income tax, had almost no change in sales tax, and the state services are infinitely better run. I can’t complain.

        Collapse
  9. Rhonda Smith

    So glad the gang is back together. Felt like all was right in the world this week…for at least 57 minutes.

    Collapse
  10. P Satter

    Very interesting podcast.
    As someone who lives in a blue state, I would say there are several factors for why the policies may be at odds with progressive ideology.
    Some Western blue states were originally sparsely-populated centrist states until recently, so a blue wave of people moving in does not necessarily move voters to completely change pre-existing tax laws in the state. There can also be a sort of libertarian-ish left ideology that animates who moves in and votes as well as they can be young, single people. This sometimes leads to a blue vote on cultural issues, but a disinterest on tax issues. There is also a great urban/rural region political divide as other commenters mention. This may be a different dynamic from the East Coast.
    Second, progressive goals may be a bit at odds with each other. As one example, the Portland metro area has a strict urban growth boundary for environmental reasons. But while growth was limited, incoming migration was not limited. Thus housing became much more expensive, which is a (partial) contributor to the homeless crisis.

    Collapse
Load More