Sorry for huge post, but worth a read I think:
www.bad-housekeeping.com/2014/08/07/sanitary-tax-attacking-the-5/
For 36 years, sexism has infiltrated our shops and haunted us as we menstruate. Each time sanitary products are purchased another victim falls to the undeniably sexist, Governmental implementation of sanitary tax. Sadly, despite decades of protesting undergone by generations, this tax remains unchecked to this day. Our petition criticises it for invalidating the importance of allowing women to control their menstruation and pursue normal, healthy, professional lives. Since then supporters from all corners of the world have criticised the illogical and regressive 5%. All 38,000 have challenged the tax’s support of a traditionally skewed, male dominated perception of patriarchal vitality.
After the UK joined the Common Market in 1973, a 17.5% sanitary tax rate was introduced. It was justified when an androcentric Parliament classified sanitary products as “non-essential”, luxury items. Since then, countless campaigns objecting to this description have been routinely ignored. An unusually popular Early Day Motion launched in 1998 was no exception. The motion, led by Labour MP Chris McCafferty, argued: “Sanitary products should be classed in the category of ‘essential to the family budget’… [and so] should be classed as VAT-free under the EC Sixth Directive”. Having received the support of 170 Members of Parliament representing an impressive array of parties, it took the Chancellor of the Exchequer a further three years to acknowledge the motion by reviewing sanitary tax. In 2000, Labour MP Dawn Primarolo announced that during the following year sanitary tax would be reduced to 5% but would not eradicated entirely. She explained the reduction was “about fairness, and doing what we can to lower the cost of a necessity”.
Since its original classification as a luxury item, EU law prevented sanitary products from escaping tax entirely. Following Europe’s decision to standardise tax across the continent, the ability of separate member states has been restricted in revising individual VAT allocations. Since then, Westminster has shallowly accepted the buoyance of these products and has outright refused to challenge its inability to eradicate the rate completely.
This refusal is significant for many reasons. First and foremost because caring for sexual health is important along with the tens of millions of women currently experiencing menstruation in the UK. Nothing should discourage an individual from taking control of their lives by caring for their wellbeing and sanitary health, much less a tax allocation. Tax implements a monetary discouragement that lessens a product’s accessibility and affordability. This is why it is specifically allocated to potentially damaging products such as alcohol or cigarettes in an attempt to discourage the public from consuming them in dangerous quantities. It is therefore completely nonsensical to stand by a tax that actively damages the public’s access to healthcare and constrains their ability to consume such a vital range of products.
It is also important because taxing women for enduring menstruation is not just nonsensical, but it also theoretically embodies a gender stereotype that silences women, shames them for their sensuality explored during puberty, and consequentially condones them to endure punishments for a natural occurrence. Periods should be shameless and free from Governmental judgement and constraint. The 5% tax rate ensures neither of the above. Instead, it successfully silences women by confusing what is important to the UK, with what is important to the majority of men within the UK. In 1973 the allocation was originally placed because a male dominated parliament decided that for them, sanitary products appeared unessential. They ignored the products’ clear importance to the masses, and instead assessed the need for them purely in relation to the majority of our male population. This confusion separates what is important to men from what is important to women and prioritises the former. The tax rate therefore actively ignores women in its state of female amnesia that has come to undermine what is essential to a large proportion of women.
In fighting against institutional female amnesia, our petition also undermines the period taboo, which has silenced the subject entirely from male ears on a generational basis. Both men and women alike should feel able to speak freely about sexual issues, including something as natural as menstruation. Negative connotations have illogically and yet timelessly been associated with periods for no justifiable reason. They are an experience worth celebrating in demonstration of functioning sexual organs and should not be cloaked with feelings of shame or embarrassment.
Thirdly, it is an important issue because the foundation upon which this tax allocation has been based is undeniably a damagingly sexist and regressive one that imprisons women in the private domain, out of the public and male dominated professional environment. Sanitary tax was initially implemented to reflect the flippancy of women and what was once considered to be their rightful place in the private domain, as opposed to the public, professional sphere. If a woman is to remain indoors, away from all forms of social and professional life, then perhaps, to a male dominated parliament in the context of 1973, the true essentiality of sanitary products may have been difficult to perceive. However, a lot has changed over the past 41 years. Women have a vital and functioning role in the 21st century workplace if they so choose to immerse themselves within it. The 5% legislation ignores this role and undermines the presence of women in the workplace, within which sanitary products are absolutely essential. Women already face difficulties flourishing within a professional environment, particularly in comparison to men, and Governmental legislation should not worsen this clear gender gap. Considering its origin, this tax allocation does nothing but convey a damaging and oppressive message that holds no relevant place in modern society.
The tax allocation is even more illogical when put into relative, tax-based context. Foods such as “edible sugar flowers”, “alcoholic jellies” and “exotic meats including crocodile and kangaroo” roam tax free having been classified as essential, non-luxury items. This far from reflects the priorities of society. If our evaluation of crocodile meat truly justifies its ‘essential’ consideration and tax exemption, which I doubt, then surely sanitary products should be at least on par with this exotic consumption. As a collective society, we can live without consuming the skin of unusual animals. We cannot live without the active public participation of women that cannot occur without sanitary products.
Last but by no means least, the tax allocation is important because it encourages male-focused agenda setting. We are here to remind HMRC that women exist and that public policy should reflect this existence. Tax allocations should expose the needs of society as a whole, and the needs of women as well as those of men. As a nation that cares about the large proportion of our menstruating citizens, this campaign contends that we are unhappy with their misrepresentation within Westminster and argues that this distortion urgently needs to be revised.
If these reasons were not enough, then the non-existence of a negative outcome to scrapping sanitary tax should persuade you to join and support our campaign, as challenging this tax allocation will marginally affect the budget to a barely noticeable degree. Taking into account the 15 million people in the UK of menstruating capability, the annual tax revenue from sanitary products can be estimates at £45 million. This is because each person will spend an average annual of £60 on sanitary products. While sanitary tax stays at 5%, each person will lose £3 per year to sanitary tax. With £3 being extracted from the 15 million menstruating individuals, the Government receives approximately £45 million on an annual basis. This is 0.0076% of the £593.5 billion overall tax revenue collected in 2012-2013 and accounts for 76 pence in every £10,000. This is a marginal figure to the Government, and yet its harms greatly out way its benefits. While £45 million may be a small dent to lose in tax revenue, the sexist and regressive message that the current tax conveys, actively discouraging the purchase of sanitary products and participation of women within the public, professional realm, holds the entirety of our society back.
Our petition is about challenging the myth that what is predominantly, but by no means exclusively, a woman’s issue is not an issue for the concern of the public. Women are not simply private individuals and their menstruation should not be penalised by legislation, shunning them to the confinement of their homes once each and every month. The 5% tax allocation no longer reflects the values or desires of society and makes absolutely no practical or theoretical sense. It is therefore an important issue that needs to be changed. Sexism has no place in infiltrating our tax system and shouldn’t haunt us while we undergo our sanitary shops. Periods should be celebrated, so George Osborne Chancellor of the Exchequer, please stop taxing our periods. Period!