Pads and tampons are not tax exempt in most states, as they are billed as “luxury goods.” Many health advocates find this to be unreasonable, as very few women, if any, consider their period to be a “luxury.” Luxury goods are products and services that are considered wants instead of necessities, such as high heel boots, vintage records, or that exercise video in your mom’s office (although she may argue that it’s a necessity).

Sanitary products are expensive and financially prohibitive for many women; a package of tampons and a package of pads cost approximately five dollars each. That is ten dollars per month, which is one hundred twenty dollars per year. The average woman will have her period for 40 years, which is an additional $4,800 spent by women specifically in their lifetime. This, of course, does not include the pain medication, new underwear, and occasional chocolate bar most women buy to help with the physical afflictions of a menstrual cycle.

Most women (with the exception of a very small part of the population) get their periods, and all women should be able to take care of their bodies during their “time of the month.” Many products advertised for women that are not gender specific (ex: t-shirts) are overwhelmingly more expensive than products marketed for men, and the extra money women shell out for these products has been dubbed the “pink tax.” 

This highlights the financial inequality between men and women, which is even more problematic when we examine the “wage gap,” the difference between the amount of money paid to women and men, often for doing the same work. The average woman makes approximately eighty cents to a man’s dollar, and many women make even less than that depending on their racial and educational background. Consequently, many women’s health advocates claim that the wage gap in conjunction with the taxation of “luxury” goods such as pads and tampons are unnecessarily prohibitive for women, which is gender bias. 

However, this perspective overlooks one fundamental point: many items that are necessary for personal health and hygiene for both men and women are not tax exempt, which should make us question the definition of “luxury goods” (or lack thereof) instead of why pads and tampons specifically are not tax exempt. 

According to a CNN article titled “Is the ‘tampon tax’ unfair to women?” from 2016, many necessities such as soap and toilet paper are subject to sales taxes in many of the 45 states that impose them. We all need soap and toilet paper, yet they are overwhelmingly billed as “luxury” goods. These items are used by both men and women, which begs the following question: is the taxation of sanitary products a symbol of women’s oppression, or rather a symbol of our country’s inconsistent tax system?

Items are tax exempt if lawmakers in a particular state believe they should be for good reason, or if taxation would make an item unnecessarily prohibitive for a state’s constituents.

For instance, food is a necessity, but not all types of food are tax exempt. In some states chicken and bread may not be taxed, but chocolate is (which is a necessity for a woman on her period, but I digress). Shampoo is an important item to maintain personal hygiene, but it is not tax exempt in most states unless it is for medicinal purposes, such as fighting dandruff. Most states do not tax prescription drugs and other necessary medical products, but it is highly variant because the definition of what constitutes as a “necessary medical product” is unfortunately subjective.

This is one of the main reasons women’s sanitary products are still taxed. If items such as soap, which everyone uses, are not considered a necessity, why would items that affect only half of the population for 4 to 7 days out of the month be considered a necessity either? 

Many economic experts argue that the outlandish taxation of these goods contributes to states’ desire for a large annual revenue. For instance, California’s Board of Equalization estimates that the tax exemption of pads and tampons would reduce the state’s annual revenue by 20 million dollars, which would be problematic (even though they make 100 billion dollars annually). States want to maintain an attractive “bottom line,” and if more items are tax exempted, then the state will have to get the money from somewhere else (because 100 billion is a MUST).

That “somewhere else” can come from a few places. One suggestion is raising taxes on items that still have them, or raising property taxes. Another suggestion, to assuage the fear rising in the hearts of the one percent reading this article, is to have all goods be subjected to a low sales tax rate, and the poor would be given an advanced tax credit or rebate to cover this sales tax burden. The latter suggestion would help mitigate, or potentially eliminate, the need to define luxury goods from essentials because everything would be subjected to some level of taxation. So, tampons and soap would still be taxed…but just not at 6.25%.

Essentially, patriarchy is real, but so is the confusion within our government regarding what constitutes as a basic necessity for both men and women and what should/should not be taxed. Can the “tampon tax” have a direct correlation to women’s oppression, the “pink tax,” and a litany of other social issues affecting women specifically? Yes! However, is it possible that the “tampon tax” simply falls under the ever-expanding category of financial issues our country needs to address? Yes, as well! Women need pads and tampons, but in the meantime some could say that splurging on a Diva Cup might have to do for now. I don’t know about an alternative for soap…