No Tax. Period.
“Anyone with a uterus will tell you that gynecological healthcare is one big misogynistic mess.”
(Danita Steinberg)
We have become quite accustomed to it. We go to a grocery store, gather our items, and head to the check out. Some of those items will be taxed, and some of them will not. What is the rationale?
In theory, it’s quite simple. According to the Constitution, items such as the food we eat are deemed “essential,” and are not subject to tax. To be fair, food is fairly essential to life. Conversely, we are to be taxed on those items that are deemed “inessential.”
The rule seems to make no distinctions about kinds of food. Fruits and vegetables are deemed “essential” and non-taxable. Dairy and meats, likewise. Is caviar essential? Is it really an essential element of life? Of contemporary living? Perhaps not, but it’s still non-taxable. Other people might consider beer, wine, and liquor as essential. I think they act as a basic food group for some individuals. Nevertheless, both the federal and state governments (I’m in New York) have taxes on alcohol. It’s categorized as “inessential.”
Other items, such as toilet paper are not taxed, either. They are not foodstuffs; nevertheless, lawmakers and policymakers have decided that having toilet paper is an essential part of contemporary life. Indeed, life would be quite different without it. Oh, we would doubtless find other kinds of accommodations. And other cultures without pre-rolled toilet paper have done quite well without it. However, the code says that toilet paper is “essential” — and I have no argument with that.
That brings us to the question of tampons and sanitary pads. As you may well know, they are taxed (in many states — a few have recently altered their tax code). At first glance, tampons and toilet paper seem to be in the same neighborhood. They are both sanitary items used to deal with bodily functions. So, why would one be taxed and not the other? What — assuming there is some — could the logic be?
The first conclusion might be that it’s because one is used by everyone and one is used by people who menstruate. No exactly true, but not far from the actual case. In either case, a LOT of people use these sanitary items on a regular basis. As with toilet paper, we managed to get along before store-bought items were available. Other cultures still do. However, much like toilet paper, these sanitary items have become essential to our way of life. And, judging by the shock, horror, and (I’m going to use this word advisedly) hysteria evident in some people when menstruation becomes public, we really seem to want to handle menstruation as quietly and neatly as possible. Essential.
The second conclusion might be because sanitary products are used by people who menstruate. Culturally and politically, the US has not seen such individuals as full citizens. Furthermore, part of the distrust and distaste derives from Christianity and the belief that menstruation was a curse brought onto women by Eve’s betrayal. Not having materials to address menstruation could be viewed as part and parcel of the “pain and travail of menstruation and childbirth.” It is the sentence upon women.
That argument is bolstered when we consider that Viagra, the male virility drug, is deemed “essential” and not taxed. Even as tampons are “inessential” and taxed. Seriously.
In addition, we know that medicine has not taken women seriously. They have been understudied in tests and trials. Their symptoms are judged according to men’s symptoms. Their accounts of their symptoms are not believed by doctors and nurses. And men do not understand the process of menstruation. Very few do.
I have talked about menstruation in many Intro classes. The lack of knowledge — by all of my students, but especially by the men — about menstruation is disheartening. And it’s dangerous, especially when those men grow up and start making law and policy and medications. Only someone who does not understand menstruation, and someone who believes that it is justified, would decide that sanitary products are “inessential.”
Right now (December 2023), the documentary Periodical is streaming on Peacock (and other streaming sites). The film was directed by Lina Plioplyte in 2023 and features many people as themselves, including medical professionals and celebrities. The documentary simultaneously performs several tasks. For one, it provides basic information. As I noted, that’s badly needed. I recommend that you round people up, of all ages and genders, and watch it together.
For another, the documentary follows the efforts to overturn the “tampon tax” — the tax levied against sanitary products because they are “inessential.” According to the Alliance for Period Supplies, as of now (December 2023), 21 states still charge a tax on sanitary products. (Several states have NO sales tax, at all.) In 1981, Minnesota was the first state to eliminate the tax. Over time, another 29 states have joined them, with a large number of them repealing the tampon tax within the last two years (5 in 2021, 4 in 2022, and 1 in 2023).
The shift away from taxing sanitary products seems like an easy and obvious change. Why are 21 states still holding out?
Well, one argument is that the savings of the repealed tax would not be passed on to consumers, thereby eliminating any benefit to consumers. In some cases, stores would keep the products at the same price, and the owners would simply pocket the difference from the sales tax. Evidence suggests that the number of cases would be small. And even if a few store owners did so, it would not alter the argument that menstruation is essential.
Another argument is that, even though the aim is to ease the financial burden on low-income women, rich women would, in fact, benefit even more from the tax reduction. Although the savings of the tampon tax would be a greater percentage of income for low-income women, wealthy women are greater consumers, and so would save more over a lifetime. While it is true that wealthy individuals spend more money over a lifetime, they are unlikely to buy a larger number of sanitary products. An individual buys what they need; tampons are not a luxury item that wealthy people hoard or display on their yacht.
A third argument would be that the loss of the tampon tax would have a negative impact on state and federal budgets. The total amount of tampon tax collected is not small, and the reduction would be noticed in the annual budget. That argument, however, works both ways. Since the total amount is not small, low-income consumers would feel it the most.
A fourth argument is that we should not be repealing the tampon tax, but rather, we should instead be taxing ALL consumer items. In other words, we should make no distinction, for tax purposes, between “essential” and “inessential” products. That argument is more likely to come from tax hawks, and does not address any class or income disparities. That MAY be a discussion to have, but right now, the Constitution says we must do it this way.
Perhaps the most specious and disingenuous argument is that no such “tampon tax” exists. They argue that sanitary products are not singled out. They are not named. They are not targeted. And that’s true. But it also misses the point. Under the current Constitutional law, we make a distinction between “essential” and “inessential.” And under the current system, some lawmakers (who have historically been men) deemed tampons and sanitary pads as “inessential.” And THAT is what the “tampon tax” argument is about. Advocates are simply asking lawmakers to recognize that sanitary products are as essential as food, and toilet paper, and Viagra.
Will ending the tampon tax lift families out of poverty? No. Will ending the tampon tax break state and federal treasuries? No.
However, what it will do is signal that menstruation is an essential process, and that individuals who menstruate deserve to be fully recognized as essential citizens.
No tax. Period.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Queering SF: Readings, Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction (Palgrave McMillan) and edited a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls (McFarland). His most recent book is Queering SF: Readings (Aqueduct Press).
