Tampon Tax

[PG2]

Originally Posted by b0son

So why bring up condoms, other than the fact men wear them? If given the option, I'm betting most males would prefer not to wear them. And wearing one arguably provides a greater benefit to the female than the male.

Ummmmmmm...

Please explain?


Actually don't - you are only going to dig yourself in deeper.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by leesa

The amount of clear and intentional sexism, potshots and general feelings of superiority over women on this board is astounding, it's not that far from the likes of reddit and 4chan.
Threads like this one do nothing more than give more opportunity for even more potshots towards women.

Can we just have a ****ing break from the disdain shown towards women?

You.really have no idea about anything but your confected social justice outrage.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by PG2

Ummmmmmm...

Please explain?

A guy isn't going to get pregnant, is he? Would you rather father a kid, or carry one?

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by b0son

A guy isn't going to get pregnant, is he? Would you rather father a kid, or carry one?

Well no **** sherlock. Obviously you don't know many blokes who have to deal with the CSA. I'm a big fan of condoms

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Ratmick

The internet is a great place for anyone with an opinion, it doesn't matter how obnoxious or nasty there's always a platform and there's always an audience. Most people aren't racist sexist bullying misogynist pigs but this proportion of society is over-represented in an environment where anonymity is virtually guaranteed.

So as to the original question, no there shouldn't be tax on sanitary items when the only other option is to make your own (and pay tax on the materials). It's stupid and it's discriminatory.

Where the line should be drawn is outside of my last statement.

The line should be drawn where the item is required by a section of the population that is forced to pay for it and there is no other option. If the item is essential for their well-being (and here is where the debate starts) then no GST. If it's optional or a random occurrence then GST should be applied.

Having something to stop menstrual flow leaking from your body and onto your clothing and everything you sit on for 4-5 days a month (if you're lucky) is essential to your well-being...if you're a women in a certain age group.

Myself as a male is not directly affected by this but I can appreciate it would be a massive inconvenience (and that is putting it mildly)...and this is going to be a regular thing that is going to happen every month to my daughter, my fiancee's daughters, my son's partner and both of their daughters for 40-odd years of their lives.

Other examples could be long-term prescription medication...but not your once a year antibiotics, something like medication for a condition that you will have to live with for the rest of your life....like diabetes/cancer/whatever. Just as a side note this should all be covered by the PBS scheme as well. Sick poor people should not have to go without food or mortgage their home to stay alive.

Birth control on the other hand is a trickier one. You don't have to pay for it, but it's better you do if you would like to partake and don't want children. Should you pay GST on it...yeah, probably...it's not the same use case as sanitary items.

The problem with GST, and a lot of other taxes...like the luxury car tax we pay even though we don't have a local car industry to protect any more, is that the government loves the revenue and doesn't like to give it up without a fight. With GST on sanitary items they have a guaranteed income source from a large section of the population that shifts as the population ages. They're not going to give that up unless they have something gain in return, like trying to sway the fertile female population to vote for them.

Another issue with GST is that it's arbitrarily and inconsistently applied.

...however this is the same with other taxes, and things like private health cover that are really taxes in disguise (you pay for private health cover otherwise the government will tax you more, it's a win/win for them either way).

would thy consider food and water essential ??

as stated where does it stop..

[Ratmick]

Originally Posted by burnz

would thy consider food and water essential ??

as stated where does it stop..

Yes but not just to one section of the community and not to others...

[pauljh74]

Originally Posted by Ratmick

The line should be drawn where the item is required by a section of the population that is forced to pay for it and there is no other option. If the item is essential for their well-being (and here is where the debate starts) then no GST. If it's optional or a random occurrence then GST should be applied.

How high do you want the GST to be once we remove the tax on all the things you believe should be tax free? Again I'll point out that the GST is not a luxury tax as you and many others incorrectly view it as, it is a broad based consumption tax. That means many, but not all "essential" items are taxed. If it was implemented in a purer form, fresh food would be taxed among other things as well. Considering the state of the federal budget currently, it would be smarter to add items to be subject to GST rather than removing them. The income tax scales were altered when the GST was introduced to compensate for the changes at the time.

I'm just getting tired of hearing of numerous short sighted people out there calling for more, more, more (not just on this issue) and then wanting to pay less tax. You want to go on about how a tax on tampons is discriminatory to women? Which half of the population takes more in tax funded benefits and services than it pays in over a lifetime? Hint, it isn't men. Women as a demographic are already subsidised.

Before anyone brings up the gender wage gap as a reason why women pay less tax:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU

[Ratmick]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

How high do you want the GST to be once we remove the tax on all the things you believe should be tax free? Again I'll point out that the GST is not a luxury tax as you and many others incorrectly view it as, it is a broad based consumption tax.

Did you actually read my post?

You seem to have read things into it I didn't write.

Nowhere did I state that GST is a luxury tax.

I also said I didn't have the answer, just that it was arbitrarily applied.

I didn't actually say anything should be 'tax free', I just that taxing sanitary items is discriminatory. And it is.

Sanitary pads and tampons are not a 'luxury', and you can't compare them with condoms

[JC]

The "tax" results in around $5 per year - or 4 ciggies, 1 coffee or something else of minimal value. The argument is not actually about the value though, but that women have to pay something that men don't.

[zipping]

Originally Posted by JC

The "tax" results in around $5 per year - or 4 ciggies, 1 coffee or something else of minimal value. The argument is not actually about the value though, but that women have to pay something that men don't.

The tax raises $30m a year approx. It's not the unfairness or value that counts at all, its the introduction of more complexity and the fact Australia’s existing tax structure is becoming increasingly narrow and unsustainable, and that personal income taxes will rise dramatically via bracket creep without reform.

Instead of removing GST on products on a case-by-case basis, the tax base should instead be broadened and the tax system made more efficient. It's actually the exemptions that kill the efficiency of the tax but like I said earlier accountants and lawyers love it while politicians get to placate and pick winners.

Basically that $30 mill lost will probably cost the overall system tax take more than double as it works its way through the tax system.

The Australian tax system would have to be one of the most archaic and dysfunctional in the world.

[Ratmick]

Originally Posted by zipping

The tax raises $30m a year approx. It's not the unfairness or value that counts at all, its the introduction of more complexity and the fact Australia’s existing tax structure is becoming increasingly narrow and unsustainable, and that personal income taxes will rise dramatically via bracket creep without reform.

Instead of removing GST on products on a case-by-case basis, the tax base should instead be broadened and the tax system made more efficient. It's actually the exemptions that kill the efficiency of the tax but like I said earlier accountants and lawyers love it while politicians get to placate and pick winners.

Basically that $30 mill lost will probably cost the overall system tax take more than double as it works its way through the tax system.

The Australian tax system would have to be one of the most archaic and dysfunctional in the world.

Yeah it changes virtually every single years causing all the tax accountants to have to keep up with the myriad of changes.

They may have been better off taxing everything, no exceptions, at a lower rate.

The end result would have been the same.

Push comes to shove the VAT in the UK is something like 17%, so not only is 10% not too bad, it's also obviously they don't always pick nice easy numbers to work with.