Tampon Tax to fund women'scharities

[misskelly]

Apparently George Osborne is going to use the tax raised from san pro to fund women's charities such as women's refuge. I know they are in desperate need of funding as some are closing down. Yet, I can't help but think it is shocking that the government are literal going to be using blood money taken from women who are generally paid less than men, and use it to protect women from male violence. Am I being unreasonable to think this is a bit off?

He could have just put the extra money he was willing to write off in VAT back in the pot so was a gesture to give to women's charities. As much as I can't stand Osborne I prefer he did that than keep it

Ahhhhh, thanks for this. I hadn't heard this news but this was on my fb newsfeed earlier and I didn't get it but now assume this is what the friend was talking about:

We should tax male grooming products to fund services supporting women suffering from male violence. Not tax women for this.

Yes, I guess YANBU, I get the point.

But any extra money for these charities has to be a good thing and it's not like the tax is new, it's just going to charity instead of back to the government.

So I'm on the fence I suppose

This decision doesn't sit well with me. If I disagree, it appears that I'm not supporting vulnerable women, but if I agree I feel that somehow I'm doing a dis-service to all women.

'Blood money' do be sensible.

Afaik it's EU legislation that requires sanpro to be vat rated. Happy to be corrected.

So he has no choice but to charge vat.

Giving the proceeds to women's charities whilst a gesture is at least better than the proceeds being swallowed up by General spending

Fair would be to tax not male grooming products (the result could be stinky, ungroomed men) but being male itself.

Male violence creates the need for women's refuges, etc.

I doubt that would be possible, though. It is always easier to take money from women.

Men can nowadays opt out of being considered men, but women cannot opt out of female biology, i.e. tampons and pads.

They can't get rid of the vat because of some eu ruling, the money is going to something worthwhile, I can't see this as a totally bad thing. In an ideal world we wouldn't need a women's refuge, but until that dream becomes reality at least some women will see a direct benefit from this money at a time in their life when they really need it.

Men's grooming products do have VAT, and at a higher rate than sanpro.

'Blood money' do be sensible.

I will try

Yes, I am aware that the EU set the Vat on San pro and our government can't remove it. I do think it is a good idea to funnel this money back to women while we still have to pay this tax, but I do think women's refuges should be funded directly by the government. This would ensure the perpetrators of violence on women would also be contributing to its funding from their tax contributions.

I think it is ok as long as it is given as well as not instead of any government funds the charities currently receive.

Why has Osbourne described tampons as "non - essential, luxury items"? Yeh because I choose to have a ridiculously heavy period. I'll start using rags instead then. My period is obviously such a luxury...

Is it just me, or does the term "San pro" make anyone else cringe, for some unknown reason?

Osbourne has never described tampons as such, VAT is not charged on luxuries.
VAT was introduced when we joined the EU in the 70's. Prior to that we had a luxury tax. When VAT was introduced, broadly speaking items that had previously had a luxury tax were taxed at 12%, other items (except food etc) were taxed at 8% - this was normalised to 15% on both in the early 80's.
Most European countries charge VAT on food - it is not a luxury tax, never has been - it is a consumption tax.

Pmsl

But yes the whole "Sanpro" thing is a bit crap, I think tha iif you're entitled to free prescriptions, you should be entitled to free towels / tampons.

The things this money is going to fund should be statutory anyway. FFS. And where is the money work out how to prevent violence against women in the first place?

IF people are going to moan about this, at least acquaint yourselves with the facts first.. I don't mean you OP.

The government have said they are working on having tampons etc removed from VAT at all. In the meantime, this is additional money going to women's charities.

Meryl I think the fact that tax credits aren't going to be cut further will help hugely with that, seeing as women often stay with violent men because they are trapped financially.

Vestal that kind of comment 'tax being male', totally undermines the feminist position and makes you come over like a loon.

It's not enough Alibaba and you know it.

It's fucking cynical. Just fund the work that needs funding. Not make it sound like they are making a generous gift out of an unfair tax.

Will these charities lose this funding again when the tax is eventually removed?

I really hope they do remove the vat. When i was on £70 a week a lot of money was going on sanitary items.
I don't think they should be free but i don't think they should be taxed.
Until last year i didn't have to buy the things, i was shocked at the price

As I have no choice to buy San pro. Then I rather the money go to women charity then into the budget.

Some men create the need for women's shelters. Most women get to pay for them. Isn't that just totally super?

Are cotton wool balls free of tax so we could roll our own tampons, maybe that's why the ready made ones are a luxury?

So when they do remove the VAT from sanpro (which is a good thing), where will they replace the shelter funding from? I'm willing to guess nowhere.

VAT is NOT a tax on luxuries; it is an EC tax on the consumption of goods and services, unless EC VAT law grants an exemption to taxation. Sanitary protection currently does not have an exemption. I have no idea why people keep saying it is a luxury tax Almost half a billion people in the EU pay VAT on basic foodstuffs, which can hardly categorized as luxury. It is the EU's decision whether VAT will be exempted, not the UK's, irrespective of what party is in power. All 28 countries would have to vote to support this. If even 1 rejects it, it won't happen. These fundamental changes to VAT legislation generally take years to be passed.

I am not wholly comfortable with the decision to donate to these charities for a variety of reasons, although at the same time I appreciate that they need funds.

Given so many people seem to have trouble understanding VAT, I think George should simplify things further and get rid of VAT exceptions, charge 20% on everything. Then maybe the word "luxury" would finally disappear from every VAT thread. (And there'd be much less need for VAT threads.)

I understand the rationale and personally think it is a good thing but could anyone explain why the EU has a say in the setting of VAT and not other parts of the tax code. Exemptions for corporation tax, income tax etc are determined by the national governments so why not VAT as well?

It probably is cynical. But that aside, it's a good thing, isn't it? He's not legally in a position to remove the tax so he's donating the money to a good cause. I can't stand Osborne, but it seems a bit pointless to have a go at him over this.