California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) has introduced a bill that would eliminate the sales tax on feminine hygiene products.
A press release for the assemblywoman said California women pay more than $20 million annually in such taxes, averaging about $7 a month.
“This is not insignificant to women, especially poor women on a tight budget who struggle to pay for basic necessities like a box of tampons or pads every month for their adult life,” Garcia said in the press release. “If we can’t make them free we should at least make them more affordable.”
The bipartisan bill (Republican Ling Ling Chang is cosponsoring) would eliminate the sales tax on tampons and sanitary napkins. Counties and cities would be reimbursed under Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for any lost revenue caused by this bill, although the bill itself makes no appropriation to do so.
“This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill,” reads the summary of the bill.
Garcia’s press release notes that “California law exempts health items like walkers, medical identification tags and prescription medication, including Viagra.” Garcia’s press secretary referred the Washington Examiner to the California State Board of Equalization’s document, “Sales and Use Taxes: Exemptions and Exclusions,” for proof that Viagra is exempted.
Viagra isn’t specifically mentioned, but prescription medicines are tax-exempt. After two questions about whether the definition included in the document also made various forms of birth control, including intrauterine devices, tax-exempt as well, Garcia’s press secretary acknowledged: “Birth control is tax-exempt.”
Since their argument is that women are treated unfairly for paying this tax, the mention of Viagra is key. It’s used to make it seem as though products for men seen as luxuries are exempted while women are discriminated against. But pointing out that birth control is also tax-exempt may negate this claim.
It should be noted that Garcia is using the gender wage gap as a means to sell this bill, repeating the misleading claim that women earn 79-cents to the dollar to that men earn. The use of this statistic is a tactic to make women feel as if they are discriminated against, when in fact the “wage gap” is more accurately referred to as an “earnings gap” because the gap is due to the different choices men and women make in their careers, such as choosing lower-paying fields or taking time off to raise a family. Garcia’s press secretary did not respond to the Examiner’s inquiry about the use of this statistic.
This is not to say it isn’t annoying to have to pay for feminine hygiene products, just as it’s annoying to pay for any necessity. And as much as I want to say, “I’m sorry you’re so upset for being born a woman,” I’m actually not against this bill in theory. Because any chance to lower taxes on the American people should be viewed as a good thing, even if I don’t like the gender-specific reasons.
But because of Section 2230, taxpayers (including women) are going to have to make up the decrease in revenue created by this bill, so this would most likely just spread the cost of the tax to all taxpayers.
Women will see a price drop at the supermarket, but their overall net earnings will remain virtually unchanged.
