An Unreasonable Tax
Fourteen states within the US do not tax feminine products. Five of these states don’t possess a sales tax, while the other nine have explicitly removed feminine hygiene products from being taxed, my home state of Massachusetts being one of them. While there is no sole tax specifically designated for feminine products, they are bundled in with other goods which are considered to be luxuries rather than necessities.
This issue has recently come more into light because this Wednesday, on October 3rd 2018, Australia announced that the country would be removing the controversial tax on feminine products. Prior to this decision, and at the moment, menstrual products are sold with a 10% goods and services tax. The plan is to see this tax removed in Australia by 2019. But, Australia is not the first country to cut out this unreasonable tax. India eliminated their 12% tax on sanitary products earlier this year. Back in July it was announced India would be getting rid of its “blood tax” one year after it was put into place. According to the BBC, as soon as the tax was put into place it was criticised. In a country where around 4 out of 5 fertile women are unable to afford feminine hygiene products, and where this inaccessibility is viewed as a leading cause to school dropouts, this tax was seen as a move backwards. And even before this year, countries like Kenya and Canada have made feminine hygiene products exempt from taxation; Canada abolished there’s back in 2015, while Kenya hasn’t taxed menstrual products since 2004.
Now, you might be wondering why it’s difficult to have these taxes removed, and it’s actually pretty simple: money. Countries take in a lot of tax revenue by taxing these products. It’s interesting to think that a country would be so keen to maintain a “tampon tax,” how many tampons could people really be buying? But this tax isn’t actually just on tampons. Feminine hygiene products include a wide range of objects like sanitary pads, tampons, or panty liners. And while these products are taxed as if they are luxuries, they are inherently necessities for women who wish to avoid free bleeding. These taxes also add up. In 2016, the state of California attempted to eradicate the tax on feminine hygiene products, but this effort was halted once it was realized California would lose around $20 million in state and local tax revenue. Out of the $112,372,263,000 tax revenue California earned in 2012, this may not seem like a lot. However, the fear is that these losses will grow over time. But at its core, the argument against the taxation of feminine hygiene products is that they shouldn’t even be taxed in the first place.
All menstrual products are a necessity and should be acknowledged as such. The Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison has even stated that “sanitary products should not have been included when the GST was introduced.” And that is why Australia will be removing its “tampon tax” within the near future. A conflict like this, one that is inherently incredibly biased, is a difficult one to overcome. While the argument against the taxation of menstrual products seems strong and reasonable, it is hard to overcome the opposing side, one that which is not negatively affected by this injustice. One day there will be equity in this sphere. And hopefully soon people who experience their periods, majority being women (a gender that is already known to earn less overall), won’t have to pay millions to their government simply due to a biological function.
This issue has recently come more into light because this Wednesday, on October 3rd 2018, Australia announced that the country would be removing the controversial tax on feminine products. Prior to this decision, and at the moment, menstrual products are sold with a 10% goods and services tax. The plan is to see this tax removed in Australia by 2019. But, Australia is not the first country to cut out this unreasonable tax. India eliminated their 12% tax on sanitary products earlier this year. Back in July it was announced India would be getting rid of its “blood tax” one year after it was put into place. According to the BBC, as soon as the tax was put into place it was criticised. In a country where around 4 out of 5 fertile women are unable to afford feminine hygiene products, and where this inaccessibility is viewed as a leading cause to school dropouts, this tax was seen as a move backwards. And even before this year, countries like Kenya and Canada have made feminine hygiene products exempt from taxation; Canada abolished there’s back in 2015, while Kenya hasn’t taxed menstrual products since 2004.
Now, you might be wondering why it’s difficult to have these taxes removed, and it’s actually pretty simple: money. Countries take in a lot of tax revenue by taxing these products. It’s interesting to think that a country would be so keen to maintain a “tampon tax,” how many tampons could people really be buying? But this tax isn’t actually just on tampons. Feminine hygiene products include a wide range of objects like sanitary pads, tampons, or panty liners. And while these products are taxed as if they are luxuries, they are inherently necessities for women who wish to avoid free bleeding. These taxes also add up. In 2016, the state of California attempted to eradicate the tax on feminine hygiene products, but this effort was halted once it was realized California would lose around $20 million in state and local tax revenue. Out of the $112,372,263,000 tax revenue California earned in 2012, this may not seem like a lot. However, the fear is that these losses will grow over time. But at its core, the argument against the taxation of feminine hygiene products is that they shouldn’t even be taxed in the first place.
All menstrual products are a necessity and should be acknowledged as such. The Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison has even stated that “sanitary products should not have been included when the GST was introduced.” And that is why Australia will be removing its “tampon tax” within the near future. A conflict like this, one that is inherently incredibly biased, is a difficult one to overcome. While the argument against the taxation of menstrual products seems strong and reasonable, it is hard to overcome the opposing side, one that which is not negatively affected by this injustice. One day there will be equity in this sphere. And hopefully soon people who experience their periods, majority being women (a gender that is already known to earn less overall), won’t have to pay millions to their government simply due to a biological function.
Comments
Post a Comment