Luxury Or Necessity: The Tampon Tax

Luxury or Necessity: The Tampon Tax

Reports of higher prices for products geared towards women have been collected since the early 1990s (Jacobsen, 2018). Products such as razors, soaps, clothing, and even pens have been estimated to be priced 40% more than products marketed towards men (Jacobsen, 2018). The indifference between prices that women and men pay for similar products is known as The Pink Tax. Not only are women faced with The Pink Tax, but they are also faced with sales tax that only directly affect women, known as “The Tampon Tax”. The Tampon Tax focuses on the issue of tampons and other mensuration products not being a part of the sales tax exemption for goods considered necessities (Ooi, 2018).

As this movement for the progression of women’s equality has turned from a social issue into a topic of discussion within our legislature, many different viewpoints of this tax have become apparent. However, these viewpoints do not thoroughly express the need for the exemption of the sales tax on feminine hygiene products or why such an unethical issue has not been addressed nationwide. In the United States, each state has its own legislature regarding sales tax. Sales taxes are usually classified into necessity and luxury. Often times, things considered a necessity are exempt from the sales tax of the state. In Georgia, some groceries, machinery, raw materials, and medical devices are means for tax exemption. To begin to decipher whether or not Tampons and other menstrual maintenance items are fit to be exemption for sales tax, we must a first thing to consider is what makes menstrual regulation products a necessity.

Many argue that menstruation management products are not to be considered a necessity due to the fact that hygienic or medical products must be a “treatment or prevention of illness or disease in human beings” to be considered a necessity. However, it can be deliberated that menstruation products are in fact a necessity to insure vaginal health. The use of these feminine hygiene products help to regulate the risk of vaginal infections that are especially susceptible during menstruation including urinary tract infections, yeast infections, and vulvar contact dermatitis (Parrillo, 2017).

Another popular notion is that there are other ways to manage the bloody expenditure. Conversely, if we begin to consider menstruation products as a means for a tax exemption, this will later leave room for the notion of whether or not all hygienic products would be able to be identified as a necessity and not a luxury. Many sanitary and hygiene manage products can be considered “necessities” in regards to the product fitting the idea of a means for the “prevention of illness or disease”. Soaps, hand sanitizers, toothpaste, dental floss and many others would soon be a topic as to what would be considered a necessity is and what a luxury is.

The Urban Institute estimates that 3.5 million people are currently homeless and 24% of this population are women (Parrillo, 2017). These women often times are left to depend on the least expensive ways to regulate their menstrual cycle, such as using toilet paper, or the reuse of menstrual products that they come across, which can lead to vaginal infections, that without treatment can result in life threatening illnesses(Larimer, 2016). These essentials are practically inaccessible to these women due to the high pricing and can be identified as a factor of the low rehabilitation rate for homeless women. Often times these women as subjected to budget for their menstrual cycles and often times have to find means to treat infections that are caused by the inability to manage their menstrual cycles. Currently, only five states have a sales tax exemption for menstruation products. These states include Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts (Parrillo, 2017).

In 2016, the raise in concern regarding this issue spread like wildfire. In California, women on average “pay about $7 per month” on menstruation management products which can result in "over $20 million yearly in tax revenue," (Larimer, 2016). With the elimination of sales tax on feminine products we are subjected to higher sales tax on other items to make up for the loss of profits. Another reason for the inability to get rid of the Tampon Tax is the idea is passing a bill for gender-biased legislation. Many argue that there is no male equivalent to the tax exemption further dividing our finances by gender rather than promoting female equality as expected.

References:

1. JACOBSEN, K. A. (2018). Rolling Back the “Pink Tax”: Dim Prospects for Eliminating Gender-Based Price Discrimination in the Sale of Consumer Goods and Services. California Western Law Review, 54(2), 241–266. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.columbusstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofm&AN=131154433&site=eds-live&scope=site
2. Larimer, S. (2016, January 08). The 'tampon tax,' explained. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/the-tampon-tax-explained/?utm_term=.c64748997d97
3. Ooi, J. (2018). Bleeding Women Dry: Tampon Taxes and Menstrual Inequity. Northwestern University Law Review, 113(1), 111–155. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.columbusstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=131600829&site=eds-live&scope=site
4. Parrillo, A., & Feller, E. (2017). Menstrual hygiene plight of homeless women, a public health disgrace. Rhode Island Medical Journal (2013), 100(12), 14–15. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.columbusstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mnh&AN=29190837&site=eds-live&scope=site