A Legal, Ethical, And Social Responsibility Analysis of Why Period Products such as Pads and Tampons Should not be Taxed

The paper will analyze the legal, ethical, and social reasons why period products should not be taxed. First, the paper will discuss the legal reasons why these products should not be taxed. Consequently, it will discuss the ethical reasons why these products should not be taxed. Finally, the paper will discuss the social responsibility reasons for why these products should not be taxed.

The topic to be examined is the Legal, Ethical, and Social Responsibility Analysis of Why Period Products such as Pads and Tampons Should not be Taxed. It is essential to explore the legal, ethical, and social reasons why period products should not be taxed to understand this policy’s potential impact.

Background Information

Pads and tampons are products that women use during their menstrual cycles, and they are necessary for women to maintain their hygiene during their menstrual cycles. Without access to these products, women would be at risk for several health problems, including infection and illness. Currently, there is a movement to exempt period products from sales tax. This movement is based on the argument that these products are essential for the health and well-being of women and that taxing them would disproportionately impact low-income women. There are several legal, ethical, and social reasons why period products should not be taxed.

1.  Legal Analysis
2. Introduction

The purpose of this section is to provide a legal analysis of why period products should not be taxed. The laws that will be used in this analysis include international treaties and conventions on gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as the US national laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex.

• Statement of Legal Principles

No specific international law requires countries to exempt period products from taxation, but some international treaties and conventions address the issue of gender equality and non-discrimination. In addition, several countries have national laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex.

• Application of Legal Principles to Topic

There is no federal law in the US mandating that menstrual products be tax exempt, but several states have chosen to exempt these items from sales tax (Sagner, 2018). The rationale for exempting these items from sales tax is that they are essential items for women and are not a luxury. In 2015, Illinois passed a law exempting menstrual products from sales tax. The bill’s sponsor, State Representative Melissa Conyers-Ervin, stated that “tampons and pads are a necessity, not a luxury, and no one should have to pay a tax on a necessity.” A similar bill was introduced in the New York state legislature in 2016. The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Liz Krueger, stated that “menstrual products are essential for half the population for approximately 40 years of their lives, and yet these products are taxed as luxury items. In Nevada, a form of anti-tax tampon law passed in 2017 and awaits voter approval in a referendum slated for November of 2018 (Sagner 2018). Similar legislation was presented in Wisconsin  and is currently awaiting a hearing. And thus far in 2018, Nebraska, Virginia, and Arizona have proposed anti-tampon tax legislation. In Utah, the current effort to enact the bill failed in committee in 2018. “The tampon tax is a glaring indication of unjust gender discrimination,” Democratic delegate from Virginia Kaye Kory argues. “It just doesn’t make sense.”  (Sagner, 2018).

The topic of exempting menstrual products from taxation is legal internationally because many international treaties and conventions address the issue of gender equality and non-discrimination (Global Citizen, 2021). These includes organizations such as the European Union. In addition, several countries have national laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex. For example, the Constitution of South Africa prohibits discrimination based on sex, and the Employment Equity Act of 1998 prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex, among other grounds. The taxation of period products is an issue that has been raised in several countries (Global Citizen, 2021). In the United States, for example, a group of legislators introduced the Pads and Tampons Tax Repeal Act in 2016, which would have exempted period products from sales tax. The bill did not pass. In Canada, the issue was raised in 2017 when the provincial government of Quebec introduced a plan to tax-period products. The government later reversed its plan after facing public backlash. Several countries have exempted period products from value-added tax (VAT). These include Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Chile, Egypt, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, and United Arab Emirates (Global Citizen, 2021).

• Legal Conclusion

No specific international laws require countries to exempt period products from taxation. However, the issue should be given more attention in international forums to ensure that women are not disproportionately taxed.

III. Ethical Analysis

1. Introduction

This section of the paper provides an ethical analysis of why period products, such as pads and tampons, should not be taxed. The ethical theory that will be used is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that holds that the morally right action is the one that maximizes utility, which is often defined as happiness or pleasure. This theory is relevant to the issue of whether period products should be taxed because the goal of utilitarianism is to maximize the overall good, and it is possible that taxing period products could lead to more happiness or pleasure for society as a whole.

• Statement of Ethical Principles from an Ethical Theory. 

The ethical theory of utilitarianism holds that the morally right action is the one that maximizes utility, which is often defined as happiness or pleasure (Scarre, 2020). This theory is relevant to the issue of whether period products should be taxed because the goal of utilitarianism is to maximize the overall good. It is possible that taxing period products could lead to more happiness or pleasure for society as a whole (Crawford et al., 2019). However, utilitarianism would not support taxing period products because it will likely lead to more unhappiness than happiness. Low-income women would be disproportionately affected by the tax, as they would have to spend a more significant percentage of their income on period products. This would likely lead to more unhappiness for low-income women, as they would have less money to spend on other necessities. In addition, the tax would probably cause some women to go without period products, which could lead to health problems. Overall, it is likely that taxing period products would lead to more unhappiness than happiness, and so utilitarianism does not support this policy.

• Application of Ethical Principles to Topic

According to the ethical theory of utilitarianism, the morally right action is the one that maximizes utility, which is often defined as happiness or pleasure (Scarre, 2020). The theory is relevant to the issue of whether period products should be taxed because the goal of utilitarianism is to maximize the overall good, and it is possible that taxing period products could lead to more happiness or pleasure for society as a whole. However, utilitarianism would not support taxing period products because it will likely lead to more unhappiness than happiness.

There are a few reasons why period products should not be taxed. First, they are necessary for many women, and tax disproportionately affects low-income women. Second, tax on period products is a form of gender discrimination, as it singles out products used exclusively by women (Udit et al., 2022). Third, the tax on period products is regressive, meaning it takes a more significant percentage of income from low-income women than from high-income women. The first reason period products should not be taxed is that they are necessary for many women, and tax disproportionately affects low-income women. According to the National Women’s Law Center, “in the United States, the median cost of period products is $70 per year. For many women and girls, this expense is significant (Goldberg, 2016). For low-income women, the cost of period products can be prohibitive.” According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “taxing menstrual products is a form of sex discrimination because only women and girls have periods.” The ACLU notes that “many states exempt other necessary items from sales tax, such as prescription drugs and groceries, but continue to tax menstrual products,” (Udit et al., 2022). It shows that there is no good reason to tax period products other than to discriminate against women . The third reason period products should not be taxed is that the tax on period products is regressive, meaning that it takes a more significant percentage of income from low-income women than from high-income women (Udit et al., 2022).

• Moral Conclusion

This ethical analysis concludes that utilitarianism does not support the policy of taxing period products, and this is because taxing period products will likely lead to more unhappiness than happiness. Despite the conclusion of this ethical analysis, it is essential to consider the social responsibility and sustainability of the policy of taxing period products. While utilitarianism does not support this policy, it is possible that taxing period products could lead to some positive outcomes for society.

IV. Social Responsibility Analysis

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing movement to exempt period products such as pads and tampons from sales tax. It is because these products are considered to be a necessity for women, and tax exemptions would make them more affordable. There are many reasons why period products should not be taxed, but the most important reason is that it would be a step towards gender equality.

• Definition of “Social Responsibility”

The decision of whether or not to tax period products should be based on principles of social responsibility. Social responsibility is “the role of people, groups, and organizations to behave in ways that are beneficial to society as a whole” (About Social Responsibility, 2022). In other words, it is the responsibility of individuals and organizations to take actions that will improve the overall welfare of society.

• Application of Definition to Topic

The application of the definition of social responsibility to the topic of period products is as follows: tax exemptions for these products would be beneficial to society as a whole because it would be a step towards gender equality, and it would help to close the gender pay gap (Gad, 2021). The organization providing the tax exemption would be socially proper. In addition, the tax on period products is regressive, meaning that it disproportionately affects low-income women. This is because sales tax is a percentage of the product’s price, so the more expensive the product, the more tax is paid. For example, a package of tampons that costs $6 would have a sales tax of $0.30, while a package of pads that costs $10 would have a sales tax of $0.50. It implies that low-income women are more likely to use cheaper products and pay higher taxes than wealthier women (Gad, 2021). Exempting period products from the sales tax would benefit society because it would help close the gender pay gap and make these products more affordable for low-income women. The company would then be suitable for eliminating taxation.

V. Sustainability Analysis

1. Introduction

This section of the paper will explore why period products should not be taxed. First, these products are essential for the health and well-being of women and girls. Second, the tax would disproportionately impact low-income women and girls, who are already struggling to make ends meet.

• Definition of “Sustainability”

The definition of sustainability is the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Ben-Eli, 2018).

• Application of Definition to Topic

The reason why period products should not be taxed is that it would be unsustainable. Period products are essential for the health and well-being of women and girls. The tax would disproportionately impact low-income women and girls struggling to make ends meet (Bildhauer, 2022). The tax would be regressive, meaning it would take a more significant percentage of income from low-income women than from high-income women. Finally, the tax would harm the environment as it would encourage the use of disposable period products, which are not biodegradable. All of these factors would make it difficult for future generations of women and girls to meet their own needs.

VI. Conclusion

In conclusion, there are many ethical, legal, sustainable, and social reasons why period products such as pads and tampons should not be taxed. First, period products are a necessity for many women and girls, and taxing them would burden these individuals. Second, there is a solid argument to be made that period products are a form of medical necessity and, as such, should be exempt from taxation. Third, from a sustainability perspective, it is essential to consider the impact of period products on an individual. Tax exemptions on tampons and pads significantly impact females as it saves them their cost of living in the long run. Finally, from a social responsibility perspective, it is essential to consider that period products are often necessary for women and girls experiencing poverty or homelessness. Taxing these products would only exacerbate the inequality that exists in our society.

References

About Social Responsibility. (2022). Learn About Quality. https://asq.org/quality-resources/social-responsibility

Ben-Eli, M. U. (2018). Sustainability: definition and five core principles, a systems perspective. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1337-1343. http://www.sustainabilitylabs.org/assets/img/SL5CorePrinciples.pdf

Bildhauer, B. M., Rostvik, C. M., & Vostral, S. L. (2022). Introduction: The Period Products (Free Provision)(Scotland) Act 2021 in the context of menstrual politics and history. Open Library of Humanities. https://olh.openlibhums.org/article/id/8159/

Crawford, B. J., Johnson, M. E., Karin, M. L., Strausfeld, L., & Waldman, E. G. (2019). The ground on which we all stand: A conversation about menstrual equity law and activism. Mich. J. Gender & L., 26, 341. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol26/iss2/4/

Gad, B. (2021). Amenities and accommodations for minorities in STEM: A Proposal for Free Menstrual Sanitary Products. Socially Responsible Modeling, Computation, and Design, 1(1). https://sondzus.github.io/SoReMoReports/SoReMo-TechReport-vol1no1sp2021-GAD.html

Global Citizen. 2021. The Tampon Tax: Everything You Need to Know. Global Citizen.org. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/tampon-tax-explained-definition-facts-statistics/

Goldberg, B. (2016). U.S. women push back against stigma, cost of menstruation. Healthcare and Pharma. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-menstruation-idUSKCN0WA1RG

Sagner Emma. 2018. More States Move To End ‘Tampon Tax’ That’s Seen As Discriminating Against Women. Business. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/25/564580736/more-states-move-to-end-tampon-tax-that-s-seen-as-discriminating-against-women

Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Utilitarianism/Scarre/p/book/9780203213766

Udit, D. A. V. E., Palaniappan, A., Lewis, E., & Gosine, B. 2022. An overview of period poverty and the public health benefit impact of providing free feminine hygiene products. International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 7(2), 221-226. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijhsrp/issue/72355/971839