A woman walks into a drugstore. She brings three items to the checkout counter: Tootsie Rolls, Tylenol and tampons. On which of these products will she have to pay a tax? The answer might surprise you.
In 40 U.S. states, consumers are required to pay a sales tax on tampons. Items like food and medicine, however, are considered essential and are exempt from this surcharge.
In recent months, there has been an explosion of sentiment against this seemingly obvious example of institutional sexism. Politicians and activists alike have called for the elimination of taxes from menstrual products, pointing to Canada and France, countries that have either completely removed or significantly reduced the charge. Even President Obama was drawn into the discourse in a recent Youtube interview, saying, “I have no idea why states would tax [tampons] as luxury items.”
Obama is right. Charging a sales tax on items that are necessary for the health and hygiene of women is an oversight that has lasted too long in the U.S. But that’s exactly what it is: an oversight, not a piece of legislation specifically designed to target women.
The current conversation regarding this issue, while correctly calling for the elimination of the tax, holds that the surcharge was levied by male legislators because of their aversion to menstruation. This serves only to reinforce the stereotype of women as victims, which is detrimental to their advancement as it lowers their perceived ability to improve their positions in society.
The fact is that no specific “tampon tax” exists. Rather, sales taxes were imposed by states in order to generate revenue. The tax-free status of certain products, namely groceries and medicine, were campaigned for heavily by interest groups. Tampons and pads, however, enjoyed no such backing.
Positively, the discussion of this issue has called attention to a structural disadvantage that women face, yet the notion that the removal of this tax will have any real effect on women’s lives is misguided. The average woman spends $7 per month on menstrual products; in a given year, the elimination of the tampon tax would save her less than $8 in New York state.
A more effective alternative to getting rid of the tax, which most adversely affects economically disadvantaged women, is for menstrual products to be covered by food stamps. I’m not suggesting an increase in the funds allocated to the program, rather a change in the products that can be purchased with it. For poor women who spend a disproportionate amount of their income on necessities, feminine hygiene products should be free, not just tax-free.
The addition of menstrual health products to the list of items covered by food stamps would not just be a more practical alternative to the elimination of the tampon tax, but a more feasible one. In the U.S., sales taxes are regulated at the state level. This is an important fact that has been ignored in the arguments that point to Canada and France, countries which apply sales taxes at the national level. While it takes the passing of just one law to eliminate the tax in these countries, a law would have to be passed in each U.S. state to entirely rid the country of it.
The attention the tampon tax has received is a step forward in the discussion of the institutional challenges women still face in the U.S. While the elimination of the tax is the right move, it would serve as little more than a symbolic gesture in the fight for gender equality. In order to truly make a change in the lives of those that are most affected by not being able to afford menstrual health products, the food stamp program must be altered to include them.