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?

Don't forget some of the money will go to women's health charities as well as refuges.

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.

How ridiculous, perhaps while we're at it women should just stay at home and not pay any tax at all, oh and why not take away the vote as well while we're at it - what a backwards attitude.

Tampons are just a household expense, probably purchased by a relatively low % of households. Why seperate the few pence vat paid on them as a women's tax. Most of the posters on this thread don't seem to give two hoots about equality anyway.

If it's so ridiculous then why tax women to pay for female health, rape crisis centres and refuges?

How ridiculous, perhaps while we're at it women should just stay at home and not pay any tax at all, oh and why not take away the vote as well while we're at it - what a backwards attitude

That logic is nonsense - or rather, it's not logic, your reasoning is illogical. What's backward about identifying and making visible the raw financial costs (never mind the emotional & physical costs) of endemic male violence? It's actually a radically progressive suggestion.

And then let's start articulating and making visible the costs to women as a class of the acceptance of violence as part of the gender role of masculinity.

• Lack of safety in our homes
• Lack of safety of our children
• Necessity of police force to protect women/children in their own homes from male violence
• Women paying for taxis at night because of street (un)safety

Those are the tangible costs to women. I wonder what the intangible costs - emotional, physical, mental - are?

• Our vigilance for our safety in public spaces
• Our vigilance about what we're wearing
• Our vigilance about what we eat & drink on public spaces

Would anyone like to add to these?

I know what I said was nonsense, so was the original comment... Clearly it is backwards to go against male and female equality and increases taxes just for men. Such a policy getting through is complete pie in the sky not to mention totally illegal.

Tampons are a household expense in an equal household, not a women's one. They are paid for by male and female income, but used only by females. Indeed in many households a male is likely to be the sole earner and therefore buying the tampons.

Donation of the funds is simply a gesture.

No one buys the tampons and towels I use for ten days every three weeks. Maybe things are not that equal in my relationship but it wouldn't occur to me to add them to the household bill. Maybe I should.

Abe I just chuck mine in the trolley with whatever else our family need. Do people really buy them separately on top of their general shopping.

Anyhoo it is a gesture. But it's better the charities get the cash than not.

I only really buy them when it's my turn to shop or if I am somewhere like home bargains where they are cheaper.

We don't have joint finances. I bulk buy if I see them cheap and have a drawer full in preparation.

Even if men are paying for them, they wouldn't be buying them at all if there weren't a woman there to need to use them. Whoever is paying, it is a tax on being a woman.

Even if men are paying for them, they wouldn't be buying them at all if there weren't a woman there to need to use them. Whoever is paying, it is a tax on being a woman.

Exactly. Clamining that it isn't is about as nonsensical as claiming that women need no voting rights because "they can influence their husband's vote".

Not every woman is married, and of those who are, not every woman is married to a man.

@NeedaScarf:
It is all part of a bigger problem. Using that tax money to pay for charities that help women helps create the impression in the general population that women should pay for those charities.

Men are already complaining, claiming it "unfair" that women get help. They completely ignore the fact that charities that help women do not create any advantage for women, they simply try to ameliorate the major disadvantages male violence causes for women.

Just goes to show that some people will complain about anything.

Just goes to show that some people will complain about anything.

No it doesn't.

Great post VestalVirgin wrt invisibling of male crime.

FWIW, I think the reason that VAT is subject to EU rules (rather than being left to national governments) is that the EU is (amongst other things) a free trade area, and if the national governments of member states were free to set their own VAT levels/rules/exemptions then they could use VAT as a way of introducing trade tariffs by the back door.

For example, if the French government decided that in France, Roquefort should be exempt from VAT but that VAT is payable in full on Stilton, it would be tantamount to a 20% (or whatever) import tariff on Stilton.

@Tiivola: Makes sense. Though I really think menstrual hygiene products should be exempt from taxes in all of Europe. I also don't think women from other countries have different opinions.

Also ... why not use tax money to fund a charity that gives poor women pads and tampons?

You seem to get free condoms at every street corner ... tampons are much more essential.

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.

And my argument is that the EU would not, because of the upcoming referendum, and challenging the UK for such a sexist tax would be very damaging for the "stay" campaign, and the EU needs the UK's cash and will want the EU to stay. Also it doesn't want the complications of a "no" vote (eg Scotland becoming independent and wanting to stay in the EU etc). The UK could do this. It chooses not to.

Should not ending the tampon tax have been one of the things David Cameron wished to renegotiate with the EU about?

The EU will see this as just one small detail in the wider VAT regime and the settled rules which apply to it. As Brexit might happen for other reasons, I doubt anyone would see this as a key matter for that.

But agreeing to re-open sealed VAT agreements is a big deal, but yes it could be done.

I think it's risky, because of the potential change from unanimity to majority on VAT matters. And that the majority of countries do not have a frozen/historic zero rate at all. And I don't fancy 5% on currently zero items.