Feminist Sexist Bellows, “…tampons shouldn’t be taxed.”

0
SHARE
tampons shouldn't be taxed

Feminists claim that tampons shouldn’t be taxed, and other menstrual products for that matter. Hanna Brooks Olsen thinks women should be able to purchase a feminine product tax-free. She shouldn’t have to pay taxes on a product simply because she’s a woman.

Well, of course, a feminist is clamoring for special treatment. She thinks tampons shouldn’t be taxed and she lists out four reasons why.

  1. They’re Not A Luxury

“There are no two ways about it: Menstrual products aren’t optional. And generally, necessary items – like food and medicine – are exempt from sales taxes.”

Well, she’s correct, tampons aren’t a luxury. Just like food and medicine. But has she ever bought food? Firstly, any food bought at a restaurant isn’t exempt from tax and multiple states have a low “grocery food” rate to boost revenue for the state. Also, 37 states tax over-the-counter medicine with four of them offering some type of exemptions. Also, other hygiene products like toothpaste, floss, and razors are taxed. Those are rather necessary and they are taxed. Next point, Hanna.

  1. They’re Already Hard Enough To Get And Afford

“Menstrual products are already pretty expensive, and few public health agencies make access to these products a priority. Instead, the access gap is typically bridged by nonprofits, like Distributing Dignity, and the faith community.”

This is where she goes in depth about some of the advanced options running off from her original product selection, tampons. Let’s look at tampon prices. Wal-Mart offers an assorted pack of 54 for $5.27. That’s $ 0.098 per tampon. She proceeds to bring up other newer menstrual products that tend to cost more, but aren’t any more essential than tampons.

  1. The Tax Raises Negligible Revenue

“The point of taxes is, quite simply, to put revenue into local and federal governments. Roads, fire services, schools, social services, higher ed, safety and law enforcement, and municipal providers – like water and sewage – are all funded by tax dollars.”

Let’s use her math from earlier in the article. The average period last four to eight days. Let’s just use five. Also, she claims to use five to six per day. We’ll go with five. That’s 25 per period. The base sales tax in California is 7.5%. Factoring in the 12.5 million women that are 18 and up. If every woman above 18 buys one box per year of the Wal-Mart brand for $5.27 plus tax, the state of California makes $4.9 million. That’s not negligible. This doesn’t include municipalities and counties extra sales tax and more expensive items. Yes, this doesn’t include those in menopause and beyond, but teenagers aren’t factored in below 18 and they’re only attributed with one  box per year. With the 25 tampons per period, that’s six boxes per year.

  1. It’s Plainly Discriminatory

“There are a number of economic and logical reasons why taxing menstrual products doesn’t make sense – it’s an unnecessary hardship on top of an expensive product that’s already difficult to get, it doesn’t square up with much of the rest of the tax code, and it doesn’t actually help keep the economy afloat.”

It’s not. It would be discriminatory to not tax a product simply because a woman uses it. All these imagined slights by third wave feminists are annoying, to say the least.

Well, Hanna, your four points made no sense. Saying tampons shouldn’t be taxed is moronic. I guess Sensodyne shouldn’t be taxed because people can’t help they have sensitive teeth.

More Content