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?

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

I'm not massively fussed about the tampon tax because of the aforementioned EU thing. What enrages me is that the government are trying to dress up supporting women's refuges as a charitable act when it should be one of the most basic things that are provided by the state. Or is looking after the vulnerable a luxury too now?

[SilentlyScreamingAgain]

Shelters aren't a luxury, they should have protected index linked central funding. At the moment all funding is for two years at a time, so they all have a a fearful six months, when they have to reapply.

[Anotherusername1]

It doesn't sit well with me because I don't like the idea of particular taxes funding particular things. But it is better than disappearing into the general pot to get wasted I guess and I am sure the womens charities could do with the money.

I am not sure why we can't just say to the EU we are taking this tax away. It would be mad for the EU to take enforcement action because of the Brexit referendum. The EU has bigger problems and most member states ignore at least one EU law they don't agree with.

[scaevola]

"could anyone explain why the EU has a say in the setting of VAT and not other parts of the tax code"

Because VAT is, and always was an EU issue. It didn't exist in Britain before we joined, and as part of membership we have to comply, just like every EU member state.

When we joined, the previous 'luxury tax' was abolished, and VAT as a general consumption tax came in.

The party which wants to end UK participation in VAT, and replace it with a Westminster decided luxury tax, is UKIP.

[TheOriginalMerylStrop]

This vital work should be statutory. And the work to eliminate the violence and abuse in the first place (massively exacerbated by austerity measures of the governments own design) should also be funded.

In the mean time we are supposed to think warm thoughts about our sociopathic chancellor for using a tax on women to pay for support to women caused by men. It is misogynistic and clumsy, as well as cynical. How stupid does he think we are?

[chantico]

If you don't like what he has done, what do you think should have happened to the VAT receipts in the time between now (agreement to try to open negotiations for a change to the EU rules) and when such agreement is secured or UK leaves?

Should it have just been left in general revenue?

[Samcro]

i hate the idea that the government can decide which charity to give too.

[howabout]

YABU
As others have pointed out the government position is to lobby to change EU VAT rules. In the meantime using the receipts to fund women's charities seems like a sensible allocation and at least a nod in support of them.

[TheOriginalMerylStrop]

Leave it in general revenue and fund this essential work anyway?

[MultishirkingAgain]

I think all men should pay an extra 1% tax to defray the costs of male violence. If might force men generally to challenge the damaging awful models of masculinity that socialise men into accepting or not seeing the epidemic of male violence.

Or at least force them to pay for male privilege.

[Samcro]

why should non abusive men pay for the abusive ones? how daft

[MultishirkingAgain]

All men benefit from the violence on which male privilege is based.

And maybe the "non-abusive" men would exert pressure on tbe "abusive" men to behave like grownups, not tantrummjng toddlers.

But I don't think there's a clear dividing line between abusive and non-abudive men. All men reap the advantages of violence against women.

[Samcro]

so does a normal nice guy who is not abusive, reap the reward??

[TwatTheNinja]

why should non abusive men pay for the abusive ones? how daft

I know what you are saying, but that sentence, suddenly made me think of it like this.

Why should all woman pay for the abusive men? How daft.


I don't know what my feelings are on what Osbourne proposes yet, I glad the charities will get extra funding, but I agree something doesn't sit easy.

[MultishirkingAgain]

Samcro, I think you need to do bit of reading and thinking about male privilege. You're seeing it in individualistic terms, whereas this whole debate is about categories of people.

But let's get thus straight: all women are socialised to be placed in the victim category, and disciplined by the threat of male violence.

All men reap the rewards of the systematic patriarchal oppression of women through violence.

[MsGee]

As someone who raises funds for a women's refuge, I am on the fence on this.

On one hand, more funding for women's refuges is a good thing.

However, the desperate need for funding would not be there if the government had not removed the ringfencing of funding for refuges a few years ago. It's tacky and it is yet another short term solution. The government has already put additional money into refuges this year through two grants programmes for refuges (and it's pretty common that the government has grants programmes and decides which charities are funded). But these are not long term solutions to the funding of refuges.

[maizieD]

There is nothing to stop the government zero rating the VAT on sanitary protection ( this article appears to say that permission needed from the European council but previous govts. have made changes to VAT rates with apparently no need to get permission).

I'm just wondering if the admin costs involved in dedicating the VAT take to certain charities would make the exercise at all worthwhile. Also, in view of cost reductions at HMRC, would staff allocated to dealing with this not be working on other areas, such as tax evasion?

I think it's just another cynical crowd pleaser designed to divert attention from the dreadful mess they're making of the economy and social justice.

[MultishirkingAgain]

Hear, hear, Maizie

[VestalVirgin]

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

Probably because people are under the impression that the exemptions of taxation is done for things that are considered necessities (like food).

[VestalVirgin]

I think all men should pay an extra 1% tax to defray the costs of male violence. If might force men generally to challenge the damaging awful models of masculinity that socialise men into accepting or not seeing the epidemic of male violence.

Yes. Would give them an incentive. 1% wouldn't even cover the pay gap, so they'd still have more money than women.
But with many men earning so much money, it would maybe cover the expenses for shelters, hospital costs for battered women, etc.

[stinanordenstram]

In the mean time we are supposed to think warm thoughts about our sociopathic chancellor for using a tax on women to pay for support to women caused by men. It is misogynistic and clumsy, as well as cynical. How stupid does he think we are?

^This x 100

[manicinsomniac]

I'm not convinced by the 'all men should pay extra tax to fund charities that help female victims of violence because they all have male privilege' idea.

Should all white people pay extra tax to fund charities that help victims of racial violence/prejudice because they all have white privilege?

It would be the same thing but that seems really wrong

[IamTheWhoreofBabylon]

Bit late but I hate San pro too
Given that woman is now a meaningless term and anyone can identify as a woman I wonder which charities will benefit?

[timelytess]

What a ridiculous idea. Just stop the tax.

'Women's charities' need funding from a range of sources but not from this. It links menstruation with the situations in which women find themselves in need of charitable aid, as if the act of being female brought about domestic violence etc. 'You bleed, therefore he beats you, therefore you need a refuge, lets pay for it with taxes you and other women have paid when buying what you need because you bleed'.

Is it 1 April already?

[TwatTheNinja]

manicinsomniac

By the same token I wonder how it would look, if there was already a tax on something essential that all non white people used.
Then the chancellor said hey that tax you pay for not being white? I'm going to give it to charities who deal with help victims of racism.


Look I'm not so sure about a tax on men, but you have got to admit, something about the whole tax and now what he's planning to do. On some level just doesn't sit right.

I do believe that if men had periods then sanpro would have been free on the nhs years ago.