Gender disparity researchers often refer to the so-called ‘pink tax,’ the price difference in which items and services promoted to women cost more than the same or very identical ones sold to males. About five years ago, when it looked at 794 items offered in New York City for customers of each age, New York City’s Consumer Ministry discovered several cases of gender pricing. However, since at least the 1990s academics have realized and analyzed this phenomenon.
- Studies in academia, governments, and women have found several examples of items sold to women that cost more than virtually the same products aimed at males and much fewer of the contrary.
- The rose tax is not a true fee, although many women’s clothing goods have higher import duties than men’s.
- A few states and municipal authorities have rules prohibiting discrimination against gender prices. While bills are in place, the U.S. federal government has not.
Attempts to Regulate the Pink Tax
The pink tax is not a true fee. If a firm sells a pink (female) product for more than a blue (male) product, the pink product does not generate any more revenues from the government.
Important: The marketing phrase “Repeal the Pink Tax.” Price differences based on gender are not a tax and hence cannot be abrogated.
The “tampon tax” is, however, a real sales tax that several states levy on women’s items, a burden mostly paid by girls and women in menstruation (though also, in many cases, by their fathers or husbands). This is an individual question from the pink tax, but we won’t debate it here despite it is connected. The pink tax is also not about the expense that many women have of things such as lipsticks and menstruation products, but not the most males.
Several countries established legislation on unfair pricing of products and services based on gender. At least one attempt was made at the federal level to pass such legislation. The aim is to regulate apparently unfair price disparities. women have less income, after all; why should they pay more for similar goods and services?
In 1996, the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 adopted by Gov. Pete Wilson of California requires that businesses charge women and men the same fee when a service is provided at the same time, cost and capacity. It focused primarily on services such as haircuts, dry cleaning, clothes changes, maintenance to cars, and other services, not items. products.
Jackie Speier, the bill’s sponsor, told the Los Angeles Times it was the first state law of its sort. This sort of apparent pricing discrimination was described by the phrase “gender tax” at the time. A previous version of the law likewise did not pass targeted goods.
New York City
Similarly, in 1998, Rudy Giuliani of New York City signed a measure to ban retail facilities like haircutters and dry cleaners from pricing only on the basis of gender. The city’s Consumer Affairs Department has authorized penalties for offenders to be collected. In particular, the rules forbids the exhibition of discriminatory pricing, such that a sign reads, “Women’s haircut $45, $25 for males” when you go to a haircutter in New York City should not be seen. The 311 city website allows the people of New York to submit sex pricing issues.
The Gender Discrimination Order of this Florida Country applies both to goods and services. The Consumer Services Department of Miami-Dade County is responsible for enforcing this municipal regulation that is applicable to all seller kinds from one person to another. It bans price discrimination purely based on the gender of the consumer but permits pricing disparities depending on the time, difficulty, or expense of delivering goods or services. Complaints may be sent in writing to the department. Aggressed parties may bring damages, prosecutor’s fees, and expenses to the offending party.
United States House of Representatives
Speier also implemented a Pink Tax Abrogation Act at the federal level in 2016, sponsoring the 1995 California Act. The bill was often reintroduced but was not adopted. Its aim is ‘to ban the price of consumer products and services essentially comparable when the price is different depending on the gender of the individual to whom the products or services for whom the services have been performed or given are meant to be used, or promoted.’ In breach of Federal Trade Commission unfair acts or disappointing norms of practices influencing inter-state trade, companies that violate the law would be scrutinized.
Uniform Women’s Goods Tariffs: Real Pink Tax
The pink tax is not a real tax, although, in one circumstance, it is: import duties. Research published by Texas AofM University’s Mosbacher Institute on trade, economics, and public policy in the USA found that apparel businesses pay higher import rates for women’s goods, such as silk shirts, wool jacks, cotton suits, suit jackets, blazers, leather shoes, and golf shoes. The import rates on men’s clothing on cotton shirts, wool suits, synthetic fiber suits, and swimwear are higher. Some products do not have a variation in tariffs depending on gender, while others have significant variances. In general, there are higher levies on women’s products.
This gap can be addressed by a greater import rate by clothing businesses, which can lead to a gender pricing differential really based on the cost of the item. The second alternative is to price both goods equal (if not the same), which implies that either the production, the merchant, or the customer has a hit. A lawsuit against the U.S. government by apparel businesses in 2007 sought but did not remove these tariff disparities.
There is still a difference in the tariff. An American Political Science Review 2020 research provides a study examining tariffs for men and women in sixteen nations over 20 years. The report was published in 167 countries. The authors of the study concluded that “women’s imports, on average, are taxed at 0.7% more than men’s imports” thus contribute to the pink tax. They also discovered that an increased representation of women in parliamentary elections might assist to solve the situation.
Gendered Price Discrimination Role of Government
Specific tariffs on items that are substantially identical in form, governments can contribute to gender pricing discrimination, with the exception of the sex of their target consumer. In consequence, higher import tariffs are being transferred to wholesalers, then retailers, and eventually to women customers. Women’s Descriptive Representation and Gendered Import Tax Discrimination.
Why the pink tax is not a problem of $1,351?
An examination of the bill in 1994 that was finally enacted by the California Senate in the 1995 Gender Tax Revoked Act (AB 1100) shows that women pay $1 351 more per year than males for items and services of identical kinds. The figure of 1994 is still commonly cited as current. Includes a short note about the rose tax or #AxThePinkTax on social media for instance. the University of Missouri-Kansas city.
This number is extremely unlikely to remain true because it simply would not be exact if it were adjusted for inflation. Since then there has undoubtedly been a change in supply-and-demand product pricing, together with efforts to offset gender disparities. However, it is comprehensible that no one has tried to update the figure because it is a huge company. However, using outdated figures does not benefit women.
The Bottom Line
Pink tax may not be a true tax unless women’s clothes have different import duties. But academic studies, government studies, and women have found hundreds of instances of items sold for women that cost more than almost similar products aimed at males – much fewer on the contrary. There is certainly evidence of gender-specific pricing discrimination, even if there is space for discussing why it exists or how significant or expensive it is.