Nobody wants to pay taxes, but they’ll also complain about lack of services

There’s a scene in the 1995 film “My Family” in which actor Jimmy Smits’ character marries a woman from El Salvador to bolster her efforts to avoid deportation, then tries to dismiss his parents’ disapproval of such cynical behavior against the sacred institution of marriage by sarcastically saying, “I’m a god---n revolutionary.”

Who'd have thought political statement being made?

I can’t help but think the same sarcasm applies to many of the people who these days are getting offended over taxes – particularly the one that is drawing the national attention to Chicago in the form of the pop tax.

JUST ON TUESDAY the Chicago Tribune reported about one of the latest lawsuits filed in Cook County Circuit Court. There’s a man from suburban Schaumburg who’s upset that when he went to his local Walgreens store to purchase bottled sparkling water, he was hit with the tax.

He argues the packaging clearly indicates the water is unsweetened, while the so-called pop tax applies to sweetened beverages.

The man who filed his lawsuit last week said he wants a jury trial (probably because he wants a court ruling based in public sentiment rather than the technicalities of the law) and class-action status, which would allow for other people who have objections to the Cook County pop tax to pile on.

Why have one lone person suing someone over the penny per ounce fee the county wants to charge on pop and other sweetened beverages if you can have many?

THIS IS ABOUT people wishing to make a stink over an issue which basically amounts to them feeling a bit cheap and not wanting to pay an additional cost every time they buy their 2-liter bottle of pop (which can come to about $0.65 more).

In the case of Walgreens, the Tribune reports that the company admits it screwed up when coding the products it sells – which means that when the cashier swipes the water bottles at the register, it comes up with the pop tax added on even though it’s not supposed to.

And since it’s programmed to do that, the cashier has no authority, or ability, to take it off. Walgreens officials say they’re working to fix the situation. Which is about all we should expect to happen.

PRECKWINKLE: Arousing cheapskate anger?

I think the people who are hoping to go after Walgreens as a way of attacking the pop tax itself are just more interested in hearing themselves yell and scream. Of course, they’ll scream even louder whenever government fails to provide the services they expect as part of their life’s routines.

THEY’RE BEING ‘REVOLUTIONARIES’ against the issue of about 20 cents being added on to the cost of a single-serving sized plastic pop bottle. All of which is meant to help balance out the Cook County government budget.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been making an effort for the past year or so to reduce the amount of carbonated beverages I consume (I enjoy an occasional Coca-Cola too much to totally give up the habit, but it certainly doesn’t have to be a daily purchase), but this particular pop tax just strikes me as being yet another increase in the cost of daily life. Nothing is as cheap as it used to be when I was younger.

Yet some people are determined to carry out this petty fee and their disagreement to an extreme. Maybe it’s because the more serious taxes are too complex for them to go after.

Similar to how some Chicago residents get all worked up over being charged 7 cents for the cost of a plastic bag whenever they buy something.

PERSONALLY, I VIEW that fee as a cost of convenience for not having to carry my own bags to the store. Although for those who have their own canvas totes or whatnot to bring with them when they shop, more power to them!

Yes, I’m aware of the new poll showing 87 percent of those questioned hate the pop tax. Then again, how many people are going to do anything about it? This is one tax that gradually is going to become a part of the daily routine – no matter how much some retail groups try to challenge it in court and how petty Cook County gets with their counter-lawsuits against them.

Personally, I’d feel like a phony revolutionary if I claimed I was opposed to either of these taxes (pop or plastic bags) on some high-minded principle involving the legitimacy of taxation.

It would be more honest if the people who are complaining were to just come out and tell the truth – they’re feeling cheap!

  -30-

EXTRA: Leftover papers? Or souvenirs for those 5M who supposedly attended victory parade in Grant Park?

So what should we think of these piles of Thursday newspapers found Friday afternoon at a Walgreens' pharmacy in the southern part of metro Chicago.

Sox fans appalled at the front page play? Or Tribune Co. (that's Tronc, to those in the know) wanting to make as much money as they could off the Nov. 3 editions of the paper, to the point that they printed up more copies and had them shipped out to stores all over the place?

THE SALES CLERK at the Walgreens where these stacks were seen told me people were so anxious to buy the paper on Thursday that her hands were all blackened from the newsprint ink. "You'd think I worked at the printing plant," she told me. So more copies of the Thursday paper arrived Friday. Similar to how more press runs were printed up back in '08 when Barack Obama became president.

I get the idea that many people are going to want something of a keepsake of that particular date. There's just one thing to keep in mind -- with so many copies of the paper being printed, they're not going to be scarce for a long, long time - if ever!

And the only way anyone's copy of the Thursday paper will ever become worth anything is if your copy, and the copies of just about everybody else you know, wind up becoming trash throughout the years.

  -30-

To listen to the business-oriented types, Walgreen’s should have left Illinois

I’m always suspicious of people who rant and rage about our local governments being anti-business.


They have an attitude that at times seems to think government is to be subservient to business. Whereas I have always viewed its purpose as to maintain a balance between the interests of government and others in our society.


SO WHAT SHOULD we make of the recent decision by Walgreens, which recently purchased a significant interest in a British pharmaceuticals company, to keep its corporate headquarters in suburban Deerfield rather than shift it to the United Kingdom – a move that would have significantly reduced the new, larger company’s tax burden.


The move created a lot of political hostility. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., was leading efforts to penalize the company if they made the move, and both President Barack Obama and Gov. Pat Quinn both made it clear they supported Durbin.


But when the decision became publicly known this week, Wall Street reacted negatively. Word that the company wasn’t going to move and seek lower tax obligations caused the stock market to plunge.


The value of shares of stock in Walgreens began to drop Tuesday afternoon, then fell by 14 percent Wednesday morning. Stock traders had it valued at $59.62 per share on Wednesday – significantly lower than the $76.39 per share all-time high the stock hit back in mid-June.


THOSE PEOPLE WOULD have considered the company to have made the smart move by literally making the overseas move.


Now I don’t know that I buy into the Durbin rhetoric about Walgreens losing its customers by making the overseas move because we’re “too patriotic” to support a British company.


Despite the people who spew “Buy American” rhetoric, I often sense that people will go for whoever will give them the cheapest price on any particular good or service they desire.


CVS probably would mop the floor with Walgreens if they could undercut the competition at the cash register – regardless of where Walgreens is located.


BUT I DID think that the decision to remain in the Chicago area was a positive one, and not just because I can’t keep count of all the times I have made a Walgreens purchase during my lifetime.


It is one of those companies that has become an innocuous part of what it means to be a Chicagoan. Yet those who only view the bottom line would have wished for a move.

What should we think of the political ramifications of this move? After all, our top political officials were all ready to crucify Walgreens for wanting to make an overseas move for financial reasons.

All except for Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who to the best of my knowledge never said anything about the issue, and likely would have kept quiet if the move had taken place.


HELPING TO KEEP a corporate presence in Illinois ought to be something we think a government official ought to do. Perhaps it is something we ought to take into account as a positive when trying to figure if Quinn is worthy of another term in office.


It will be interesting to see if Republican challenger Bruce Rauner somehow tries to use this against the governor in the weeks leading up to Election Day. Because Durbin's Senate challenger, James Oberweis, on Wednesday said Dick deserves "scorn, not praise," for taking his Walgreens-related stance. Will Rauner feel compelled to say the same about Pat? Or will he have the sense to keep his mouth shut on this issue?


I’m sure from the perspective of those people whose business orientation overtakes all other sense of our society, they can come up with a way to justify blasting Quinn for his viewpoint on the Walgreens issue.


But perhaps the rest of us ought to take this set of circumstances and keep it in mind as evidence that perhaps the rhetoric of Quinn being “anti-business” isn’t as simple-minded as they’d have us believe and that perhaps he’s doing a few things right!

  -30-