Pink tax
This phenomenon is often attributed to gender-based price discrimination, however research shows that the primary cause is women sorting into goods with higher marginal costs.
[3] Other countries where the pink tax has been investigated include Argentina,[8] France, Germany, the UK,[9] Australia, and Italy.
[10][11] In the UK, women and girls were being charged on average 37 per cent more for toys, cosmetics and clothes than their male counterparts.
[14] Additionally, women in Singapore have to pay more premiums for Careshield Life, a national long-term care insurance scheme introduced by the government.
[17] Certain types of clothing, footwear, and gloves made for women and men are taxed at different levels when first entering the United States.
According to The Washington Post article[18] women are more likely to spend more money on improving their appearance, because not doing so is associated with the risk of losing revenue.
Following this, the lack of transparency in pricing and limited competition in certain product categories also enable companies to implement the pink tax.
Overall, the pink tax reflects much bigger systematic issues of gender inequality and discrimination in consumer markets.
Instead, critics have attributed the pricing disparity to market forces,[30] and stated that if women continue to buy a more expensive pink razor, it is because they see some utility or additional aesthetic that they are willing to pay for.
[34][35][36] Activists and politicians argue that the economic impact of the pink tax is that women have less purchasing power, especially paired with the gender-based pay gap.
More so, the pink tax contributes to the phenomenon of "period poverty" where many women struggle to afford basic menstrual products which can affect social, emotional, and physical health.
Studies have shown that women can pay thousands of dollars more over their lifetimes because of the pink tax, which furthers the wealth gap between genders.
Efforts to address the pink tax, such as state-level bans and campaigns aim to alleviate some of these economic burdens faced by women, but a federal solution is still lacking.
Therefore, the economic impact of the pink tax highlights the urgent need for comprehensive measures to promote gender equity and financial empowerment for all.
[42][43] The Pink Tax Repeal Act would mandate that any comparable products that are marketed toward men and women must be priced equally.
[46] In June 2021, Speier reintroduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act, a bipartisan bill that pursues to end gender discrimination in the pricing of goods and services.
[51] The main opposition argument was that a bill proposed on goods would lead to litigation, especially since the process of identifying gendered pricing remains ambiguous and subjective.
[55][56] In England, the UK Government is funding free period products to be accessed in schools, councils and public buildings.
[57] An Early day motion directly citing the Pink tax was raised in the UK parliament by Scottish Liberal Democrat Christine Jardine in 2020 to highlight MPs concerns that women and girls pay more for basic products (including toiletries, clothes, and haircuts) than men do.
[60] Jardine highlights that in the UK "women on average pay £200 more annually than men for the same every-day consumer goods and services" and that in some cases the only difference is the color of the item.
[61][26] A private member's bill to make period products freely available was introduced by Baroness Boycott, but it died on the order paper.Boycott, Rosie (2020-02-04).
[63] In Wales, the UK Government is funding free period products to be accessed in schools, colleges, hospitals, and the premises of councils.
[74] Similarly, this puts an even greater strain onto poverty-stricken households and results in a large percentage of women and young girls being unable to afford them.
For instance, in a 2015 Scotland study, it was discovered that "45% of girls" had used "toilet paper, socks and newspaper to replace menstrual products" because they were unable to afford them.
This disparity contributes to what is known as the tampon tax, where women are ending up having to pay thousands of dollars more over their lifetimes due to this discriminatory pricing practice.
However, despite progress in some areas, the Tampon tax remains a large barrier to menstrual health and financial equality for women.
[85] Recent developments in technology, big data, and online consumerism research have found potential gender biased IT algorithms.
[86] A research study published in 2020 done at the University of Bamberg, Germany investigated gender specific differences in recommender systems in fashion.
[89] They also alleged that the bill was unfriendly to domestic manufacturing jobs and that lowering the prices for women's products could lead to employee layoffs.
[38] As a charity campaign for the political organization EMILY's List (a political action committee which supports the election of Democratic women who are in favor of abortion rights), the satirical card game Cards Against Humanity parodied the pink tax with a "For Her" edition of its base set, which had pink packaging and was $5 more expensive.
