Are pads and tampons taxed but Viagra and Rogaine not?

[bcking 3,157]

I kind of feel like I fall in the middle of this. I agree with IDWAF that the tax is not on a gender, it is on a product. Anyone who buys the product pays the tax, so that includes parents buying for their daughters, or husbands for their wives. So the assumed "sexism" about the tax isn't something that is quite so obvious to me. I think saying that if men had periods it wouldn't be taxed is purely speculation, since there really isn't an equivalent for men and all of men's hygiene products are taxed. So I tend to not consider that argument since it is not really proveable so sort of a moot point. I also completely disagree with comparing it to Viagra or even Rogaine, both of which are medicines for a specific disease (albiet not a life threatening disease, but then non-life threatening medicines as a whole should be reconsidered if you want to reconsider just those two).

 

I think there needs to be a new category that is essentially a "basic standard of living", that includes items that are not taxed. In that category I would place tampons/pads. I would include toothbrushes. I would include diapers. These are all things where there are legitimate medical risks if you forego their use and while they are optional and yes I'm sure there are countries where they are not standard, I think our country is developed enough and has progressed enough for people to be able to expect those items as a standard. I also ABSOLUTELY think items in that category should be purchaseable using government assistance (vouchers what have you).

 

Deodorant and razors would not fall in that category. For either sex, there is no medical risk if you forego the use of either one. They are truly hygeine products. 

 

As for the price difference for razors, to me it partly depends on the cost. If someone has data that shows that the actual razors cost the exact same amount but the female ones are more expensive then yes that is messed up. If the women's razors are actually different and cost more (they look different to me at least) then it is reasonable to charge more. Women can always buy the cheaper "male razors" if they want to. They are just a different color?

[smilesammich 10,727]

i don't think anyone but idwaf is approaching this topic from the angle of 'gender tax'. 

and lets not get into the whole 'just because a man is purchasing a product for his daughter/wife doesn't mean he's using his money" this is the only slippery slope i see.

and it shouldn't be compared to viagra or rogain because all men don't have monthly erectile dysfunction, and rogaine is absolutely cosmetic.

 

i'm thinking more if men had periods, they'd no longer have periods. iykwim.

[bcking 3,157]

Don't know the answer to this question:

 

Are medical supplies taxed for consumers? Band aids, gauze? Things that aren't actually medications but are for medical purposes?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

20 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i don't think anyone but idwaf is approaching this topic from the angle of 'gender tax'. 

and lets not get into the whole 'just because a man is purchasing a product for his daughter/wife doesn't mean he's using his money" this is the only slippery slope i see.

and it shouldn't be compared to viagra or rogain because all men don't have monthly erectile dysfunction, and rogaine is absolutely cosmetic.

 

i'm thinking more if men had periods, they'd no longer have periods. iykwim.

I never even heard of "tampon tax" being an issue until this past week, thanks to so many women posting their outrage publicly on FB.  That's why I am confused about it being a women's issue.  There are other, much LARGER issues women should be concerned with, like the gender/wage inequality issue.  That's something I can get behind, and in fact I do... my past three jobs have been in fields where the pay is equal, regardless of sex, race, etc.  Not sure what else I can do about that issue, but I recognize it as an issue.

 

NOW you say it shouldn't be compared to Rogaine or Viagra, yet it's the title of the topic you created...

[smilesammich 10,727]

9 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I never even heard of "tampon tax" being an issue until this past week, thanks to so many women posting their outrage publicly on FB.  That's why I am confused about it being a women's issue.  There are other, much LARGER issues women should be concerned with, like the gender/wage inequality issue.  That's something I can get behind, and in fact I do... my past three jobs have been in fields where the pay is equal, regardless of sex, race, etc.  Not sure what else I can do about that issue, but I recognize it as an issue.

 

NOW you say it shouldn't be compared to Rogaine or Viagra, yet it's the title of the topic you created...

the title is a question, you wanted a conversation - i tried to post accordingly.

are you friends with these women on fb? i would ask them, i saw plenty of feminist uprising on social media over the weekend, but nothing specifically about the tampon tax.

[smilesammich 10,727]

27 minutes ago, bcking said:

Don't know the answer to this question:

 

Are medical supplies taxed for consumers? Band aids, gauze? Things that aren't actually medications but are for medical purposes?

idk, but there's a difference in the usage of bandaid/gauze and the usage of tampons. a pretty major difference.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

idk, but there's a difference in the usage of bandaid/gauze and the usage of tampons. a pretty major difference.

I wasn't trying to suggest that there wasn't a difference. My hope was the answer was "No they aren't taxed", and that there was a "medical equipment" category that is exempt for tax. Tampons, in my opinion, would fit quite nicely into a category like that if one existed. Obviously not just bandaids/gauze, those are just the examples I thought of at the time. But anything that is used for medical purposes, but is not an actual medicine.

 

Are syringes for a diabetic taxed? If someone doesn't have insurance and has to pay for it out of pocket, I wonder if they pay a tax on syringes? 

 

If someone didn't want to buy syringes, they could also get one, sterilize it over a fire and reuse it (that's a joke obviously).

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I wasn't trying to suggest that there wasn't a difference. My hope was the answer was "No they aren't taxed", and that there was a "medical equipment" category that is exempt for tax. Tampons, in my opinion, would fit quite nicely into a category like that if one existed. Obviously not just bandaids/gauze, those are just the examples I thought of at the time. But anything that is used for medical purposes, but is not an actual medicine.

 

Are syringes for a diabetic taxed? If someone doesn't have insurance and has to pay for it out of pocket, I wonder if they pay a tax on syringes? 

 

If someone didn't want to buy syringes, they could also get one, sterilize it over a fire and reuse it (that's a joke obviously).

oh believe me, for diabetics the tax on syringes is not comparable to the cost of insulin..

 

i think one problem is that we're trying to find a comparable product/function that applies to everyone. i don't think it exists..

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, smilesammich said:

oh believe me, for diabetics the tax on syringes is not comparable to the cost of insulin..

 

i think one problem is that we're trying to find a comparable product/function that applies to everyone. i don't think it exists..

Of course syringes is not comparable to insulin. I was never comparing them?

 

I would argue there are "comparable" products. I personally don't care that tampons are only required for one sex. I see them as medical equipment, regardless of the fact that periods are not a "disease". I think there are health benefits of using them, just like there health benefits for toothbrushes (Comparatively there are no health benefits to razors or deodorant). So I think they are comparable to syringes, gauze and other medical supplies. If all of that is taxed, then I think the issue isn't just with tampons. It's a much bigger issue. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Of course syringes is not comparable to insulin. I was never comparing them?

 

I would argue there are "comparable" products. I personally don't care that tampons are only required for one sex. I see them as medical equipment, regardless of the fact that periods are not a "disease". I think there are health benefits of using them, just like there health benefits for toothbrushes (Comparatively there are no health benefits to razors or deodorant). So I think they are comparable to syringes, gauze and other medical supplies. If all of that is taxed, then I think the issue isn't just with tampons. It's a much bigger issue. 

not saying you were comparing, i'm saying it's irrelevant.

women bleed 3-7 days a month for up to 40 years or moreven or less. is there a comparable non disease that requires a product similarly?

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, smilesammich said:

not saying you were comparing, i'm saying it's irrelevant.

women bleed 3-7 days a month for up to 40 years or moreven or less. is there a comparable non disease that requires a product similarly?

I just don't think that argument helps the case. If it is truly a unique case, it is harder to argue for it. I think it is better to try to argue that it fits into a category that already isn't taxed.

[Ban Hammer 13,501]

it's about now that i'm wishing for the good old days of obama.
since trump took office, all we've talked about in vj is who's was bigger and tampon taxes.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

the title is a question, you wanted a conversation - i tried to post accordingly.

are you friends with these women on fb? i would ask them, i saw plenty of feminist uprising on social media over the weekend, but nothing specifically about the tampon tax.

The women who are my friends don't see it as an issue.  Don't think the tax matters at all.   (Don't much think women in America are all that oppressed, either, from what I gathered.)

 

The ones I see raging about it say it's all Trump's fault, so not going to enter into a discussion with them.  So I came here seeking reasonable discourse on the topic.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

and tell me why the govt allows Viagra to be sold at 40 dollars plus a pill up over 300% since it came out, and allows the drug companies to delay it going generic in the US, but everywhere else in the world it is.

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

I just don't think that argument helps the case. If it is truly a unique case, it is harder to argue for it. I think it is better to try to argue that it fits into a category that already isn't taxed.

it is a unique case, in that it only affects women. which also somehow makes it harder to argue for it.