{"id":236980,"date":"2019-05-12T05:00:14","date_gmt":"2019-05-12T12:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/getrichslowly.org\/?p=236980"},"modified":"2023-12-05T14:18:24","modified_gmt":"2023-12-05T21:18:24","slug":"pink-tax","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.getrichslowly.org\/pink-tax\/","title":{"rendered":"The pink tax: The hidden cost of being female"},"content":{"rendered":"

Women working to achieve financial independence<\/a> face an extra hurdle: the hidden cost of being female.<\/p>\n

Though it\u2019s cheekily referred to as the \u201cpink tax\u201d, the additional cost women incur for personal-care products, toys, clothing, dry cleaning, health care, mortgages, and vehicle maintenance is no joking matter. It inflates our budgets, limits our ability to save, and sometimes hinders our ability to access affordable and safe sources of credit.<\/p>\n

Based on that semi-intense description of the pink tax, you may think it\u2019s already been made illegal to charge someone more on the basis of their gender. But that\u2019s not true. There\u2019s no federal law prohibiting companies from charging different prices for products that are identical (or very similar), but which are marketed by gender. At least not currently.<\/p>\n

Only one U.S. municipality \u2014 Miami-Dade County<\/a> \u2014 has banned this practice. California enacted a similar restriction in 1995, but it applies only to the pricing of services. New York City followed in 1998.<\/p>\n

On top of the pink tax, women still earn less than their male counterparts. The average woman is paid 82 cents<\/a> for every $1 her male colleagues earn; the discrepancy is much worse for women of color.<\/p>\n

When you\u2019re paying more for basic goods and services from birth until death \u2014 just because you\u2019re female \u2014 it\u2019s easy to understand why so many women are pushing to \u201cAx the Pink Tax<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span>What is the Pink Tax?<\/span><\/h2>\n

Twenty-five years ago, in 1994, the State of California studied the issue of gender-based pricing. They found women pay about $1300 more each year for the same services as men. Accounting for inflation, that figure is now closer to $2135<\/a> per year.<\/p>\n

If that figure doesn\u2019t shock you, maybe this will: By the time a woman turns 29 (like me), she\u2019ll have spent an estimated<\/a> $39,203 on the pink tax alone! Can you imagine how much money I could have right now if I\u2019d put the money I spent on the pink tax in a savings account? Especially one with compounded interest!?<\/p>\n

In 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) published a report on the pink tax entitled \u201cFrom Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer<\/a>\u201d. The report found that women\u2019s products cost more than men\u2019s products 42 percent of the time. 42 percent! By comparison, men\u2019s products cost more than the female version 18 percent of the time.<\/p>\n

According to the DCA report, products for female consumers were likely to cost more across industries:<\/p>\n