{"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 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 Nowhere is the pink tax more evident than when it comes to personal-care products<\/a>. Personal-care products geared toward women cost approximately 13 percent more than similar products marketed toward men.<\/p>\n Similarly, women are financially penalized for having their menstrual cycle. The U.S. government has deemed menstrual products a “luxury item” despite the fact that menstrual cycles are a monthly reality for all women, not a \u201cluxury\u201d. <\/p>\n For comparison: Prescription and non-prescription drugs and medical supplies are exempt from sales tax. This includes aspirin, DayQuil, ChapStick, gauze, Viagra, and condoms.<\/p>\n But all hell breaks loose if an end to the tampon tax is proposed \u2013 even though a study<\/a> published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that two out of three low-income women in the U.S. couldn\u2019t afford menstrual products at least once each year. The study also found that tax breaks on tampons are extremely beneficial for low-income women.<\/p>\n Despite this growing body of research that it costs way more to live as a woman than a man, proposals to eliminate tampon taxes or other pink taxes don\u2019t get very far.<\/p>\n In New York, where a tax on menstrual products was eliminated<\/a>, the state has recorded a $14 million loss in tax revenue as a result. In California, former Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill in 2016 that would have eliminated the state\u2019s tampon tax for fear that the state would lose $20 million in annual taxes.<\/p>\n What does the pink tax look like in action?<\/p>\n At Target, a red Radio Flyer \u201cMy 1st Scooter\u201d marketed at boys retailed for $24.99. The \u201cMy 1st Scooter Sparkle\u201d, the same Radio Flyer but painted pink with glitter, retailed for $49.99.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Until, that is, the DCA study came out.<\/p>\n When questioned about the price difference between the two Radio Flyer scooters, Target referred to the extra $25 cost of the pink scooter as a \u201csystem error\u201d. The retailer now sells both scooters for $29.99.<\/p>\n Even children\u2019s short-sleeved uniform t-shirts showed a gender price difference, with boys\u2019 tops retailing for $10.95, while girls\u2019 tops retailed for $12.95. Anyone have a clue why the girl version costs $2 extra?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The gender-based price difference is even more blatant when it comes to adult clothing.<\/p>\n Women\u2019s clothing costs more than men\u2019s clothing in six of seven categories! The only category where men pay more than women is underwear \u2013 men typically pay $2.44 more for underwear than women. However, women are paying more than a $2.44 difference when it comes to dress pants, dress shirts, sweaters, jeans, shirts, and socks.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It\u2019s not just retailers though that pass along costs onto female consumers, for really no other reason than to boost their own bottom line. It\u2019s also service providers like dry cleaners and car repair shops that are guilty of charging women more than men.<\/p>\n Suzanne McGee knows all too well the additional cost that\u2019s incurred when a female goes to the dry cleaners. \u201cI\u2019ve been hit with the pink tax again,\u201d she wrote in a column for The Guardian<\/a>. \u201cI knew it was coming; I should have been prepared with better arguments. But I couldn\u2019t avoid it\u2026I ended up getting charged $7 for cleaning my \u2018female\u2019 shirt and not the $3.25 a man would have been charged.\u201d<\/p>\n To prove her theory, McGee had a male friend return to the dry cleaner with an identical shirt to see how much he would be charged to have the same plain, cotton, long-sleeved shirt dry cleaned. McGee\u2019s male friend was charged just $3.25, while McGee had been charged $7 to dry-clean the same top.<\/p>\n While it\u2019s illegal for your gender to play a role in determining your mortgage rate<\/a>, there\u2019s a slew of studies showing women pay higher mortgage rates than men in relation to their risk of defaulting.<\/p>\n According to a report<\/a> in the Los Angeles Times, because income was once a determining factor in one\u2019s ability to obtain credit, women were often denied as a result of earning less than men.<\/p>\n A similar trend was found in the small loans market. Studies found that women were rejected more than men when applying for loans. When women were approved, they were given smaller loans, but because so many women feared being rejected, most didn\u2019t apply for loans in the first place, the Times reported.<\/p>\n A similar occurrence happens in the auto industry.<\/p>\n It sounds clich\u00e9, but a study<\/a> from Northwestern found that women who acted uninformed when asking about having a radiator replaced were charged more. Women were quoted at $406 for a service that should cost around $365. Men who acted unfamiliar with the repair, just as the women had done, were quoted $383 for the same service, the study found.<\/p>\n In 2015, New York officials concluded that because the pink tax is largely unavoidable, it\u2019s a \u201cgreater financial burden for female consumers than for male consumer\u201d.<\/p>\n Consumers don\u2019t control the textiles or ingredients used in the products marketed to them, the DCA report noted. Additionally, consumers can only make purchasing decisions based on what\u2019s available in the marketplace.<\/p>\n However, a report<\/a> from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded differently.<\/p>\n Because there isn\u2019t a law preventing companies from charging different prices for men and women\u2019s versions of products, and companies have a legal right and responsibility to maximize profits, the GAO couldn\u2019t conclude the gender price disparity was unfair.<\/p>\n The GAO even argued that \u201cit\u2019s up to consumers to understand any price differences\u201d.<\/p>\n I may have been able to let that ill-informed conclusion slide if they hadn\u2019t added this part: Concerns about gender discrimination were not studied due to \u201cvery few complaints\u201d.<\/p>\n Until the gender pay gap and gender tax are eliminated, is there anything we can do to try to level the playing field economically?<\/p>\n To start, you can choose to purchase the men\u2019s version of many personal-care products in order to save money. Or, if you\u2019re like me and prefer to stick to feminine versions, many female-centric online retailers<\/a> now offer pink tax-free personal-care products via subscription services<\/a>. This way you can save money and still enjoy a pink razor.<\/p>\n The other thing we can do is use our voices on social media especially to speak up.<\/p>\n When you\u2019re shopping, check to see if there\u2019s a price difference between the women\u2019s and men\u2019s versions. If there is, look to see if the size and ingredients are comparable. If they\u2019re the same, take a picture of both products and use the hashtag #AxThePinkTax.<\/p>\n Some companies who\u2019ve become aware of the price discrepancies of their own products have made changes to level the economic playing field.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<\/span>What is the Pink Tax?<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
<\/span>The Pink Tax in Action<\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/span>Mortgages, Cars, and Loans<\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/span>No Evidence of Discrimination?<\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/span>Stop Paying the Pink Tax!<\/span><\/h2>\n