|
|
|
|
|
|
by tropdrop
2619 days ago
|
|
|
For context: many places around the US will separate food, drugs, and medical appliances (considered essential for life) from all other goods, taxing the former at 2% and the latter at something like 8-10% - Chicago, for example [1]. This 2% category often includes candy, soda, Viagra... in 15 states there are no restrictions, as long as it is consumable as food. Goods in the latter category are considered "luxury," so what's mentioned here is the battle against the luxury tax for products that are essential to a female's life. Chicago, a small handful of cities and ten states have already eliminated this unfair burden on top of the average $18,000 spent on feminine hygiene over a lifetime [2]. But the most tragically comical story I've found about this is what happened in Utah - the all-male panel rejected eliminating the tax, citing that they would need to recoup those tax funds from other sales, and that it was "unfair to tax the whole population for something that only affects half of it." The representative sponsoring the bill keeps trying every year, and every year the all-male committee continues to say No to her... [1] https://accountingsolutionsltd.com/faqs/sales-tax-rate-chica...
[2] https://www.sapling.com/3308/the-amount-youve-probably-spend... |
|
|
They should go have a chat with their moms.