Delving a bit deeper into the so-called ‘pink tax’

My wife has been battling allergies for about four weeks now. Her consumption of facial tissue is considerable.

That caused me to think about the recent call at the Legislature to exempt women’s personal hygiene products from taxation due to the essential nature of these products, a point that I believe has merit. As I watch my wife suffer, I consider the essential nature of those tissues.

The main difference between the hygiene products and the tissues is that about half the population uses one as opposed to all of us requiring the other; we all have a nose. The same can be said for toilet tissue. Disposable baby diapers are in dispute because reusable cloth diapers are a viable option that has been around for years. The same can’t be said for toilet paper, unless we go back to corn cobs. The Sears catalog is a distant memory and no longer an option.

One could even stretch the argument that all of this is a necessity, like the mentality that women’s reproductive medical coverage is essential and its costs must be shared by all. I call for a full government cost subsidization of all of the products that we all need to survive in a sanitary and healthy manner. If it gets thrown in the trash or flushed, don’t tax it, subsidize it.

We need to decide if we want to start down this path and, if we do, are we going to approach it in a truly equitable, gender neutral manner? Or is this really about “the war on women”?

ad-high_impact_4
TOP NEWS
ad-infeed_1x2_1
News Headlines
ad-infeed_1
ads_infeed_2
Local Spotlight
Events
Home Front Page Footer Listing
Circular
You May Like

You May Like