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?

So what exactly happens when we get to the point where we can theoretically abolish tampon tax but in practice we can't because so many women's charities have become dependant on it?

Yes, I agree ninja - there is something not quite right. But I don't think taxing men instead is the answer.

I'm not sure I think tax should pay for charity at all

I don't like the way domestic violence and sexual assault is framed as something done to women, rather than something done by a criminal, like every other crime I can think of.

It's obviously good that the services are being funded, but it makes me uncomfortable that women are funding this directly because it has a bit of 'you use it, you pay for it' about it.

I understand the situation with the EU and that it's not just luxury products that are taxed but I think it's the fact that products such as incontinence pads are 0% but sanitary products are 5% - how can that make sense?

it's obviously good that the services are being funded, but it makes me uncomfortable that women are funding this directly because it has a bit of 'you use it, you pay for it' about it

^ Yy thats it, thats why it feels all wrong

Maizie No EU country can lower the VAT rate on taxable goods or services below 5% - that is set down in EC VAT legislation. The Wikipedia article is massively simplified and it does not say that the UK can change the rate to 0%. If the UK rebelled and just reduced it to 0% for the hell of it, the EC would issue infraction proceedings against the UK and a case would be heard in the European Court of Justice, which the UK would 100% lose as it would be ultra vires EC legislation.

VestalVirgin There is no EC VAT exemption for food. Most EU countries charge citizens VAT on basic foods. The UK was granted a concession to keep a zero rate on certain foods when it joined the EU in 1973. New countries are not able to negotiate these concessions anymore. The UK cannot extend the scope of its 0% concessions; once they apply a positive rate of VAT to something within the 0% concessions - e.g. VAT on gas and electricity for domestic premises was increased to 5% years ago - it can never change it back to 0%.

Girlsailor only certain incontinence products specifically designed solely for disabled people currently have the 0% concessionary treatment - see para 4.5.4 of the link below. Note it mentions several scenarios where the supplier cannot zero rate incontinence products.

VAT relief on certain products for disabled people

Sanitary protection is not specifically designed for solely disabled people so cannot meet the 0% concession conditions.

I don't like the way domestic violence and sexual assault is framed as something done to women, rather than something done by a criminal, like every other crime I can think of.

It is the invisibling of male violence. Very common thing. Instead of calling it "male violence" they call it "violence against women" or "domestic violence" and thus make it women's problem when it is actually created by men.

Something doesn't sit easy with me about this either.

My first question would be who and what will be these women's charities? What will be the process of funding? How will funding be allocated?

I am very nervous when it comes to government funding non-governmental endeavours. Such a situation is ripe for the misallocation of funds and all manner of fuckery.

Call me a cynic, but I can see this tampon tax going to places like the Women's Institute and the Fawcett Society, rather than front line services.

It incenses me that it implies violence and abuse against women is a "women's issue". It's not, it's a whole society issue, caused by men.

it's obviously good that the services are being funded, but it makes me uncomfortable that women are funding this directly because it has a bit of 'you use it, you pay for it' about it

But it's not being 'funded directly' by women. All that's happening is that Osborne is pledging some money for women's refuges from tax receipts. The rest is just spin because the 'tampon tax' has been in the news.

If Osborne had pledged to spend £X million on refuges, that was the same amount as taken from VAT on sanpro but didn't make the connection, no-one would be carping.

Personally I'm delighted to hear a chunk of money has been set aside for vital services supporting abused women. It should be more but at least it's not being forgotten. There's lot of overthinking going on here.

So just to clarify:

Women don't like paying tampon tax
Chancellor wants to appease them
Chancellor offers to spend tampon tax receipts on something that USED to be centrally funded but is now considered non vital
Chancellor expects a big pat on the back for paying for something that should never have been put at risk

So if the Tampon Tax were to fund Women's refuges, then what would fund charities for men suffering violence from women?

It's basically a tax on being a woman. Therefore it should be scrapped. Taxes should come from everyone, to be spent on everything necessary.

Good reason to leave the EU hmm?

Also, in my household, as in many others I suspect, payments for sanitary products come out of the joint family budget, not my own specifically (just like the coconut water that only I drink, and the hot chocolate that only dp drinks).

I'm sorry but taxing men extra because they are the perpetrators of violence towards women? Really? Well no... Criminals are the perpetrators of violence towards women not men in general, I volunteer for a charity that supports local refuges and many of the women there are escaping from violent female partners, tarring all men as violent woman beaters is ridiculous women are violent towards men, other women, children, parents and animals just as some men are , these are violent people not just one particular gender is capable of violence and cruelty

Another ridiculous idea by the Tory party alongside the bedroom tax. Where the fuck do they get these ideas from. Why should we be taxed anyway on something that for women is a basic necessity. To use it as a charitable act to women who are beaten etc is a dreadful message.

Also everyone's assuming only woman pay for tampons which isn't always the case, so in a way some men are funding it

We're talking about the tampons you use for menstruations, not those the dentist uses to dry your teeth for making filings.

Only women have menstruations, and while there may be the odd single dad who pays for his teenage daughter's tampons, that is really the exception, not the norm.

@Mrsbird: You know, we could also call it equality tax and use it to remove the effects of the pay gap. Which would mean that men pay the percentage of money the earn more than women as tax.

That would be more than one percent.

Or we could, you know, try to tax misogynist movies. That way, only misogynist men, who are likely to are or become criminals, would have to pay.
But ... then we would be in a debate of what constitutes misogyny. Let's be real here, it would just be easier to tax men.

By the way, when you mention women escaping from violent female partners, do you mean actually female partners, or transwomen partners? Sorry that I have to ask but with transwomen now being called "women" it is all a bit complicated.

And no, women are not just as violent as men are. 90% or so of all criminals are male. And female criminals are more likely to be non-violent.

If you agree that criminals are the perpetrators of violence, then you should agree that most perpetrators of violence are also male.

People who keep finding exceptions to my "Masculinity tax" are seeing it as an individual thing. Tax doesn't work that way (nor do benefits) in the conception of any tax/benefits scheme.

These schemes all use the concept of categories or classes of persons. So, you know, the fact that Jane Doe does a "worthy" job as a nurse doesn't make any difference to how she's taxed in relation to Joe Smith over there who's a banker and makes money out of foreclosing on people's mortgages. Not such a worthy job.

They're both taxed in the same system.

Hahaha non essential luxury items, only a man would come out with this! I'm more fussed he's cutting the bursaries paid to student nurses to be honest, I think he's an idiot.

By promising the tax on sanitary products, the government are sending the message that they think domestic abuse is a female problem. It's not.

Refuges should be adequately funded by central/local government long-term, not reliant on charity handouts and novelty tax PR exercises.

Incidentally, EU directives and legislation aren't/isn't imposed on us by some faceless Brussels quango. The mechanism involves the member states' representatives discussing and proposing laws - including UK MEPs and government ministers. We are represented in these decisions.

VAT is not a luxury tax. It is a general consumption tax, for example in much of EU it is levied on all foodstuffs, as most countries do not have the UK's legacy 0% rate for that.

UK depends on VAT being a closed issue to be able to maintain the zero rate at all (very unpopular with other countries). If reopened, then the whole future of the zero rate would be up for challenge.