About 2 to 3 times a week, my wife and I will be watching the news or having a conversation about something that happened that day, and I’ll respond with “What is wrong with people? It’s common sense. I could have tax reform done in a day.” To which she always responds, “Yes, you should be a lead economist. I just don’t know where you will find the time.” Of course, I pick up on the fact that her voice is dripping with more than a little sarcasm, but I ignore it because I truly believe I could solve the world’s problems if only I were given the chance.
Today, I’m going to take my shot at a few of the problems in the news and how I would handle them. You can be the judge if I shouldn’t quit my day job. 
BUSINESS
THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY: Yes, United Airlines has been in the news this week with the horrific way they, along with airport security, handled an overbooking situation on one of their flights, but it really could have been any of the airlines. They ALL overbook. The thing I don’t understand is why? Even if a person doesn’t show for a flight, the seat is already paid for. Why the need to try and double sell a seat? Wouldn’t selling exactly the number of seats on the plane and having a few no shows provide a bit more flexibility in helping stranded travelers? When they all show up and you need to offer vouchers, that basically eats up your additional profit, not to mention leaves you with some bad word of mouth in the best case, and some extremely damaging PR in the worst.
The airline industry is such an unequivocal mess in terms of price, service, inconvenience and comfort, one wonders how they stay in business. The answer to that is fairly simple. They have you over a barrel. For longer distances anyway. Unless you have a week to reach your destination, driving or a horse and buggy are simply out of the equation for travel. Interestingly, flights of an hour or less might not actually save you any time at all over driving or the train when you factor travel time to and from the airport, check in, security, boarding, and baggage claim. But try driving 5 hours each way for 3 days in a row and get back to me.
So the airlines can charge what they like and most people will be forced to pay it. They can even overbook to maximize profits. So how do you fix it?
1. Regulate the airline industry. Let the airlines charge what they want, BUT the same type of seat should cost the exact same price. No variables allowed whatsoever. Competition will keep the costs down. If an airline charges too much, they’ll have a number of empty seats. If the airlines collude to set prices, well, that opens up a whole new can of worms. For starters, it’s illegal. But it’s also difficult to prove. And now, with all the airline mergers and four airlines controlling 85% of the domestic travel, the competition has dropped. Competition is the backbone of a capitalistic society. If the airlines want to eliminate competition, then the government needs to step in and regulate prices. Plain and simple. Check. And checkmate.
2. Eliminate overbooking as a practice. Airlines do it to maximize profits. People that buy refundable tickets and don’t show for a flight is lost revenue for the airline. So don’t sell refundable tickets. I can’t return a car after the three day period. I can’t return a ticket to a concert. Why should I be able to return an airline ticket Insurance was created for those that are worried about the unforeseen coming up. With no refunds, and every seat sold, the airlines will get their money. But it doesn’t enable the airlines to maximize their profits. You can’t sell the same car to two different people. Why on earth should you be allowed to sell the same seat to two different people? Regulate the industry that won’t regulate itself by making it illegal to do so. Or make it so people need to agree on a price with the airline to be involuntarily removed from a flight. No maximum amount. Everyone has their price. But it could be steep. Once that happens a few times, overbooking will be a thing of the past.
POLITICS
TAXES: TO REFORM OR NOT TO REFORM, THAT IS THE QUESTION…
This is a hot button topic these days, with President Trump making this one of his core promises on the campaign trail. Tax reform should be a cause that everyone can rally behind should it not? Pump the brakes, young NASCAR racer. Critics of the President sight his lack of transparency in releasing his personal returns as a necessity before agreeing to support any tax reform. Why? Because they want to make sure he isn’t going to benefit from such decisions. Really? When did we become a country of sniveling little brothers and sisters, ratting out our older siblings because we feel they got something we didn’t? Personally, I couldn’t care less if Trump releases his returns as long as everything in them is legal. And I’m fairly certain that with the IRS auditing his returns, if there was something illegal in them, we would know about it. But what if he pays a lower percentage of taxes than I do? Or worse yet, what if he pays less taxes overall than I do?? I circle back to my original response. As long as it’s legal, I have no problem with that. Well, I might have a problem with it, but it isn’t with the president. It is with the people that created the loopholes to begin with. Yes, those same people in congress that are screaming for President Trump to release his returns. What amazes me is how the government runs its business. How on earth can you run a business without having any idea how much money you are going to bring in to cover your expenses? It is no wonder we are constantly running a deficit. If I ran my business that way, I’d be out of business. So how do we fix it? It’s pretty simple really. Eliminate the loopholes. What you owe is what you owe. It would certainly make it easier to balance the budget if you knew what you were going to be bringing in. What about charities? Sure, you could leave that in as a write off, but I’ve never understood the logic behind the argument that if we did away with write offs, no one would donate to charity. People donate to causes they believe in IF they have the money to do so. But a write off isn’t a one for one trade off. No one is going to donate $5,000 they don’t really have to spend so they can save $750 on their taxes. Not sure what I mean? Let’s look at an example. A married couple filing jointly makes $75,000 a year. Under our current tax code, this couple will pay a 10% tax on their first $18,550 in income and then 15% on their income from $18,550 to $75,300. It comes to a total of $10,317.50 in taxes, leaving $64,677.65 left after paying it. In contrast, let’s say this same family donates $5,000 to the American Cancer Society (a very worthy cause). They now have $70,000 in taxable income instead of $75,000. Calculated the same way as above, they would now pay $9,572.50. That is $745 less in taxes you say! Yes, it is, but you are also left with only $60,427.65 in income after the taxes have been paid. That is $4,250 less in disposable income. If someone said to you to invest $5,000 to save $745, what would our response be? Take a leap off the George Washington Bridge I’m going to guess. The point being as a business deal, it is bad business. And the real point being, that people don’t give to charity for a tax write off. They give because it’s worthy and they have the money to do so. Period. But if people don’t want to buy into my argument, you can keep that as your only write off. You’d still have a much better idea as to what income would be coming in to run the government, and in turn, what money you have to spend.
Let’s circle back for a moment to Trump’s tax returns and who benefits most from reform. If the reforms were across the board cuts, the uber wealthy would benefit the most of course. As they should, since they pay the most taxes to begin with. The top 5% (income wise) of the people pay more than 60% of the nation’s tax base. Think about that for a second. 5% of the people pay 60% of the taxes. If someone said to you, they were going to give you $2,000, but you had to pay a dinner bill of $1,200 or they were going to give you only $900, but you didn’t have to contribute at all to dinner, which would be a better deal? Personally, I’d take Option B. Obviously that is an extreme example that wouldn’t happen under our tax code, but what does happen under our progressive tax code, is that a couple making $150,000 more in income than another couple, only makes about $105,000 more once taxes have been paid. Still a sizable amount of money to be sure, but it also serves to illustrate that the uber wealthy (of which I am not), if you eliminated the loopholes and write offs, would end up paying more than their fair share. So when people complain that the rich would potentially get too much of a break under tax reform, I’ll admit, I don’t understand the complaint. I don’t care if someone else gets a break, or even more of a break, as long as I get one too. And sure, the break will be more for the millionaires, as it should be, because they pay more in taxes to begin with! My solution? Eliminate loopholes and minimize write offs. Create MORE tax brackets, not fewer. There is a big difference between a family of four making $435,000 a year and one making $4,000,000 a year and yet those two are treated exactly the same. Closing the loopholes and adding tax brackets would accomplish two things. 1) We would have a better shot at balancing the budget. 2) The uber wealthy would likely end up paying MORE in taxes even if you lowered their tax rates.
AS THE SPORTS WORLD TURNS…
TEBOW TIME
Tim Tebow is a tremendous all around athlete who is now trying his hand at professional baseball after his football career didn’t pan out the way he and his legion of fans would have liked. He is also by all rational accounts a terrific person. Humble. Kind. Hard working. Generous. So why the hate?
I simply don’t get it. I’m not a Florida Gators fan. I’m not a bible thumper. But I can’t help but root for the guy. In a world of professional athletes and entertainers that beat their spouses, drink too much juice (booze), take too much juice (steroids), shout drunken slurs, and start bar brawls, Tebow is a breath of fresh air.
He stops to sign autographs and take pictures. He started a foundation that helps children with special needs. He even comforted a fellow airline passenger and a fan at a baseball game, both of whom had collapsed. They should be giving this guy a medal, not grief. Those that argue he wasn’t a good football player, I’d argue he was, but his style didn’t fit the NFL game and none of the coaches nor fragile starting QBs wanted to deal with the circus following for a backup QB. But that’s somewhat irrelevant. Those same people are now arguing he doesn’t deserve a chance to play minor league baseball because he hasn’t played in more than ten years. “So what” is my response to that. Every day people get a break because of who they know or what talent they bring to the equation. Kids are accepted to college because they play the flute. Or because they scored well on a standardized test. Adults get jobs because they know someone who knows someone. Tebow is a tremendous athlete with an outstanding work ethic, who has been a leader on every team he played. He won a Heisman Trophy and two college national championships. How could that be bad for any team, even if he hit .100? The answer is that it isn’t. Haters are gonna hate, but deep down in their heart of hearts, they know they’re wrong. They know they are not capable of a rational thought where he is concerned. Maybe it’s jealousy. Maybe it’s insecurity. Maybe it is uncomfortableness at his unwavering faith that he wears openly. Whatever the reason, it’s time to get over it. It’s Tebow time.
ENTERTAINMENT
Lost in the glut of superhero movies and reality television is the ability to tell a good story. It doesn’t need to be complicated. Maybe it’s teen angst. A character driven romance with the music of the gods. Movies like Pretty in Pink, or the lessor known Some Kind of Wonderful, both John Hughes classics. Or the adult version of the other side of the tracks romance, Cameron Crowe’s, Jerry Maguire. Those stories were about love, loyalty and friendship. And that’s the problem with the film industry these days. It doesn’t stand for anything. The top 15 highest grossing movies of 2016 were dotted with animation, superheroes and a pair of rogue Star Wars movies. Not a single feel good romance in the lot. Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with a superhero or a clever children’s film. But where are the simple stories that make you feel a little better after you’ve seen them than before? They aren’t for everyone, but those that agree, I’ve got one for you to check out from 2013. The Way, Way Back stars the underrated Sam Rockwell as a well-meaning, but irresponsible manager of a water park who befriends an awkward teen who is there for the summer. It is a simple story of an unlikely friendship, single parent family dynamics, with a little bit of romance thrown in for good measure. It is the sort of story whose description doesn’t come close to adequately describing its virtues. With understated direction by Nat Faxon (Academy Award winner of the Best Screenplay for 2012’s The Descendants) and Jim Rash, let me just say, The Way, Way Back is clever, witty, sweet and wonderful. Do yourself a favor and dial it up on demand.
More to come next week, folks. Until then, do something nice for a stranger, and do something nice for yourself by doing something nice for a stranger.