truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
I think of all the arguments made in this thread, the tax on tampons would be the only one that I consider legit as a form of gender bias.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
80 Years of Subtle Sexism
- Thread starter Magrat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- feminism sexism womens rights
I think of all the arguments made in this thread, the tax on tampons would be the only one that I consider legit as a form of gender bias.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
I was replying to a post linking to a BBC report about the tax situation in the UK, so that's what my comments referred to.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
So I started a thread about sexism and now we are talking about jock itch. Seems a logical progression
I found out that yeast infections were transmittable.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Why? Because it's something "obvious" that only (menstruating cis-) women use? As noted, in the UK 20% VAT applies to "everything" unless it's specifically exempted or reduced. Sanitary products are reduced to 5% - which in the grand scheme of things is pretty trivial - but that can't be reduced further under EU rules. The question is not why women are supposedly being singled out, but why should they get even more of a break on this one type of product than they already are?
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
Well because you have to buy them or sanitary napkins. But if you want us all to leave trails of blood everywhere we go....
I don't understand the logic. Are you responding to the question at the end of Information Analyst about why women should get an addition break on this type of product? You are arguing that there should be no tax since the product is essential. But surely there is no general principle that we pay no tax on essential products? Does your argument not depend on the existence of this general principle?
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
In my opinion tampons are medically necessary. Not luxury items. Information Analysis is talking about taxes in the UK. I'm talking in the US so I suppose it's different. Some information on the U.S. My original response was to bruto.
http://fusion.net/story/142965/states-that-tax-tampons-period-tax/
http://fusion.net/story/142965/states-that-tax-tampons-period-tax/
Last edited:
Is sales tax in the US only for luxury items? I'm only picking Hawaii because I found information on that quickest, but there pretty much everything seems to be subject to some kind of sales tax including medical services.
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
Hawaii is probably the least representative of any US state because of everything needing to be imported. It's like comparing New Zealand to England.
You can read the link to see the different taxes in different states.
Last edited:
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
Every state has its own rules. They also are different by county in each state. There's a state tax and a county tax. So I can't answer that question.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,086
No, sales tax can be on just about everything. Some states have exemptions such as for groceries, but not all do.
Some states don't have any sales tax at all.
In that case, I don't see that it is obviously wrong for a state that taxes groceries and over the counter medicines to tax tampons.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
It varies from state to state. Some, like New Hampshire, have no sales tax at all. Some tax everything. Others, like Vermont and many states, exempt certain things that are considered essential. Sales taxes are inherently somewhat regressive in that they make no distinction between rich and poor, but are much more so when they require the poor to pay for things that everyone must have to live, or if they compromise the ability of people to provide for their children. It is presumed, I think, that the state's interest is not promoted if taxes prevent people from feeding and clothing their children sufficiently, for example, or if taxes prevent people from meeting certain medical necessities, since remedying these problems would be more expensive.
deadrose
Illuminator
There's been an ongoing debate for years about expanding food stamps to cover some of the more necessary non-food consumables. Nothing's really happened with it yet, so if you want to help the poor in some way, show up at your local food bank with a case of toilet paper, or laundry soap, or feminine hygiene products. And if you bring disposable razors, nobody will care if they're pink or not.
Personally, the thing that's always annoyed me about womens' razors, more than the color or raised price, is the idea that we're all too inept to shave with an ordinary handle on a razor, but need super-special extra-wide easy-grip handles. My hands still work, thank you. But that could set me off on another tangent about price differences if you buy the same item from a toy department or as an assistive or therapeutic device. So I'll shut up now
Personally, the thing that's always annoyed me about womens' razors, more than the color or raised price, is the idea that we're all too inept to shave with an ordinary handle on a razor, but need super-special extra-wide easy-grip handles. My hands still work, thank you. But that could set me off on another tangent about price differences if you buy the same item from a toy department or as an assistive or therapeutic device. So I'll shut up now
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
There's been an ongoing debate for years about expanding food stamps to cover some of the more necessary non-food consumables. Nothing's really happened with it yet, so if you want to help the poor in some way, show up at your local food bank with a case of toilet paper, or laundry soap, or feminine hygiene products. And if you bring disposable razors, nobody will care if they're pink or not.
Personally, the thing that's always annoyed me about womens' razors, more than the color or raised price, is the idea that we're all too inept to shave with an ordinary handle on a razor, but need super-special extra-wide easy-grip handles. My hands still work, thank you. But that could set me off on another tangent about price differences if you buy the same item from a toy department or as an assistive or therapeutic device. So I'll shut up now
Are you kidding? That's how you interpret it? LOL Um dude chicks generally get razors to shave their armpits, legs and burr. And in most cases the wide handle is because they are designed to be used in a shower covered with soap and running water. IOW your hands are also covered with soap and water.
A normal razor for a face has a slender handle because it doesn't need to compensate for that.
It's got nothing to do with them thinking.....LMAO this is why no one takes a complaining feminist seriously any more......
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Because everyone knows that guys never shave in the shower, and always manage to do so without getting any water, shaving soap, or shaving cream on their hands while doing so. That's why "men's" razors are never manufactured with grip-enhancing designs and textures.
Oh, wait...
"Women's" razors are manufactured in different shapes because that is one of only two ways (colour being the other) to set them apart, and charge the gullible more for them.
It's got nothing to do with them thinking.....LMAO this is why no one takes a complaining feminist seriously any more......
You're pointing at the wrong post for that comment. Got a mirror handy?
Last edited:
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
Because everyone knows that guys never shave in the shower, and always manage to do so without getting any water, shaving soap, or shaving cream on their hands while doing so. That's why "men's" razors are never manufactured with grip-enhancing designs and textures.
Oh, wait...
"Women's" razors are manufactured in different shapes because that is one of only two ways (colour being the other) to set them apart, and charge the gullible more for them.
You're pointing at the wrong post for that comment. Got a mirror handy?
Sigh......think!!!! What's the difference between shaving your legs and shaving YOUR Face in the shower????
SORRY GUYS, TYPO!!
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
It seems to me easy enough to imagine that women's razors could have a slightly different set of requirements from men's, or even simply be designed for different tastes or shelf attactiveness to the buyer. After all, even if a woman can use a man's razor easily in the shower, maybe she'd rather use a pink one. And though a man can easily use a pink one, maybe he'd rather not. If both parties in a couple use similar looking razors, a color difference might be convenient. It's an easy taste to cater to, and there's little reason why one should not. But given the enormous volume of both produced, and the frequency with which they are both used and discarded, that does not explain why the price should be different, even if they are shaped differently. They're both manufactured in similar ways in quantities that make the economy of scale unlikely.
Sigh......think!!!! What's the difference between shaving your legs and shaving you legs in the shower????
Who might be helping?