Are pads and tampons taxed but Viagra and Rogaine not?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

48 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

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.

 

 

But it's not TAXED.  Same thing for epinephrine.   Ridiculous. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

41 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

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

I'd say it's ridiculous that a device to cover a woman's boobs, and keep nerples from being visible is so darn expensive.  I'd rather keep paying taxes on pads and lower the prices on bras.  It's very discriminatory. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

50 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

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.

 

 

that's not a viagra problem, that's a prescription drug problem.

[yuna628 9,671]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

First off, let's establish that the tampon tax does not only affect women.  It affects whomever is paying for them.  The dad, for his daughters.  The husband, for his spouse.  Women, for themselves.  It's a tax on a product, not against a gender.

 

Personally, I don't care one way or another on the tampon tax.  But it's a slippery slope.  How far do you go in defining necessities?  Walmart has TP and soap in their bathrooms because they pay for it.  Ditto airports.  ALL places that have public restrooms.  In all of these places, you may or may not find free seat covers.  You may or may not find a tampon dispenser, where one must pay.  Ditto a condom dispenser.  It's up to the store providing the service how much and what types of products they offer in their bathrooms.  The problem with putting pads and tampons in there is their pilferableness, I suspect.  Probably makes it cost prohibitive when women take 5 or 10 instead of 1.

 

I think it's crazy one can use EBT to buy steak and lobster, but not paper goods (non food items).

Yes it will affect whomever is paying for it. But ultimately the reason why it is being purchased is because it is a necessary item for women based on biology -thus overwhelmingly regardless of whom is paying for it - it a female-only product (unless you count Male-Depends - however not all men require use of such items as they age - but women DO require use of these items to live their lives) essential to living life as a female that is being unfairly taxed.

3 hours ago, bcking said:

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?

I think history shows us that if men suffered from such a condition every month, they would not be willing to put up with it - for one. And, they would seek out some innovation in that regard. Overwhelmingly governments that support these taxes and decide what items are luxury and not luxury are made up mostly of men - and when taken such subjects to debate (as was in the UK government) it was filled with giggles and being horrified to even mention the subject seriously for debate.  Ask yourself why exactly is the item classed as a luxury instead of exempt essential items? What is the reasoning for it? Why is candy allowed on food stamps but essential items for bodily functions are not?

2 hours 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...

But who are you to say what a woman should and shouldn't be concerned about? It's just one of many issues women are concerned about. When all is said and done, whomever purchases such items shells out an enormous sum in taxes in their lifetime, ontop of the cost of the product. When it comes to sales taxes, and some taxes in general, I'm a little more libertarian on the subject in that it's frankly silly. I'm thankful that a few states are willing to acknowledge how silly it is, but it would be good if others would get on board. When it comes down to it, it's all a money making scheme. The NYT once examined the issue and the conclusion from economists was that tampons and pads was a good way for states to make money off of someone's biology - in that ''people will buy them whether the economy is good or bad'' because there is literally nothing else a woman can do about her biology - the same can be said for TP. When you think about it, it simply doesn't make sense, especially when you look at the items they call essential vs luxury. Have a read of this on the subject: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-are-we-paying-sales-tax-on-tampons/

2 hours 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?

There's a couple articles about this question. One of them is in the WSJ, but that generally has a paywall.

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.

I would say it is generally better to argue that this item should fit into a category that shouldn't be taxed. That's why I would be for adding a whole list of things to exempt items. If only government would have the courage to address it seriously.

54 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

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.

 

 

That is typically the same for a lot of drugs NB. You're going to have to take the patent issue up with Pfizer though and the bigpharma lobbyists in government. On that I feel you. They once produced a very effective allergy drug that was critically helpful to me as a child - it took nearly 15 years for them to argue about the patent to not go generic or not be sold OTC. It's finally sold OTC now, but still costs a ridiculous amount - the same with their OTC PPI drugs.

Edited January 27, 2017 by yuna628

[smilesammich 10,727]

12 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I'd say it's ridiculous that a device to cover a woman's boobs, and keep nerples from being visible is so darn expensive.  I'd rather keep paying taxes on pads and lower the prices on bras.  It's very discriminatory. 

is that what bras are actually for? i had no idea.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

is that what bras are actually for? i had no idea.

I've learned so much about my physiology, hygienic needs and clothing choices here. 

 

Top thread!

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 hours ago, smilesammich said:

that's not a viagra problem, that's a prescription drug problem.

That was my point .. 

[Dashinka 24,489]

13 hours ago, 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..

I think the answer to that question is there isn't a comparable function, or applicable products under normal circumstances.  Of course someone may have female issues, or male issues that cause them to purchase specific products, but nothing is comparable in men to a woman having a period.  As to the tax thing, that is a business question.

[Teddy B 17,252]

18 hours ago, IDWAF said:

 Whatever happened to the simplistic approach of using clean rags and washing them?  They may not last 40 years, but surely a woman could get at least 9-10 good years' worth of use out of them?

 

I think Clint Eastwood said it best: "A man's got to know his limitations".

[OriZ 3,157]

18 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Spoken like a person who has never had a period in their life. Have you even seen what a heavy period looks like?  Before the invention of tampons and pads, women suffered greatly and mostly couldn't even leave the house if their little 'rags' and 'belt system' couldn't cope!

 

Omg don't remind me...my wife used to have to buy the super plus...but then she ended up having a hysterectomy so right around two years now of nothing and she could not be happier. Not to mention the savings....

[OriZ 3,157]

18 hours ago, 8bit_Theatre said:

Generally speaking unprepared food is not taxed in most states. Examples include fruits and vegetables, raw meat etc.

 

It's kinda nice in VT you don't pay tax on unprepared food OR on clothing, cause well clothes are kind of a necessity as well.

[bcking 3,157]

31 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

It's kinda nice in VT you don't pay tax on unprepared food OR on clothing, cause well clothes are kind of a necessity as well.

I know it would be a weird system but I think clothing under a certain price should be untaxed. If someone buys a 500 dollar dress, that isn't a necessity.

[OriZ 3,157]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

I know it would be a weird system but I think clothing under a certain price should be untaxed. If someone buys a 500 dollar dress, that isn't a necessity.

 

Yeah I wouldn't have a problem with that. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

that's all the protesting the tampon tax is doing, trying to get each state that currently has sales tax to exempt tampons/pads as it is an unfair tax burden to women. some states tax clothing, some don't. right before school in virginia (and wva too i think) we have weekends where no sales tax is charged on clothing and school supplies. clearly we all have the capability to determine if a product is one that should be exempt from sales tax, even if it is only during a certain period (no pun intended) to ease a specific demographic from unfair tax burden.

[Teddy B 17,252]

After reading through this thread I have come to the conclusion that IDWAF is really Donald Trump.