You must log in or register to comment.

investthrowaway000 t1_is33wv8 wrote

I've always felt that menstrual related products should be subsidized at some level. Maybe tax deductible?

I'd bet if us guys had to buy $20 worth of something like...ball hammocks, per month, people would change their tune.


byneothername t1_is3q14f wrote

There are plenty of very poor people that don’t even file tax returns so having it be tax deductible wouldn’t really help them.


[deleted] t1_is3fsa3 wrote



Different-Horse-4578 t1_is3q0i0 wrote

All women are different. Some have a $5-7/month menstrual flow and others have one that costs them $20/month.


[deleted] t1_is3stcq wrote



kyamh t1_is3vl0i wrote

Some folks have periods lasting 2 days. Other folks have periods lasting 7+ days. Some folks have irregular bleeding in the middle of cycles.

Some people have a cycle every 22 days, some only a few times a year.

It's not so straightforward :)


focus503 t1_is5waii wrote

Yep. I (M52) remember I was hearing about the once a month period thing growing up.

And then as I started dating and living with people it always struck me as weird that it seemed like far more often than once a month, until I realized that really it's once every 3 weeks because, it lasts for a week.

That made me more sympathetic.


HellStoneBats t1_is3uthg wrote

You're also not taking into account those who have to change tampons every 30 mins, so a 12pk will last them maybe 6 hours, or who have to wear both tampon and pad at the same time to prevent leaks. Some of these are medically-influenced, but some people just piss blood - and not in the fun anecdotal way.


Uharugger t1_is4bnzr wrote

That would be me. Until I went on birth control and now I don't get a period. But holy hell, the amount of money each month was staggering. 8+ days, changing a super+ tampon every hour plus having a pad. It was like that the whole time.


Different-Horse-4578 t1_is3uyoi wrote

Type of tampon IS for different rates of flow, but some women bleed heavily (need greatest absorbency tampons) but only for one day a month while others bleed very heavily (need greatest absorbency tampons) for 7+ days each month.


CablePicker t1_is3h5le wrote

Why not get rid of tax on food, cars, and income. All are necessary.


ti_84_plus t1_is3pq75 wrote

Kinda sad cars are necessary in the majority of NA :(( but in my neck of the woods food, clothes, utilities, tickets, newspapers, landlines, mailing, personal+ professional services, agriculture crap and equipment for manufacturers (among other things that don't apply to ordinary people) are exempt from sales tax. Thought you might find this interesting!


CablePicker t1_is3rc8x wrote

Newspapers and landlines? What about fax machines? What about prepared food?


zorggalacticus t1_is3jsok wrote

I'm for abolishing income tax altogether, and establishing a federal sales tax instead. We'd probably actually get more taxes from the rich as there'd be no more tax loopholes or tax havens. All that money they spend would be taxed. And the average consumer would come out way ahead on that deal.


XavvenFayne t1_is3kfs6 wrote

At the risk of getting further off topic, sales tax tends to be regressive because lower income people have to spend all or almost all of their money on necessities, while rich people don't actually spend a significant % of their wealth at all. I'm in favor of the wealth tax that Elizabeth Warren has been advocating for. If wealth inequality is the problem then you tax wealth.


zorggalacticus t1_is3l6dc wrote

The still spend way more. Sales tax on a yacht is more than most people will pay in a year. Same for a Lamborghini, or a multimillion dollar home. Or that 500 dollar bottle of champagne. The amount of money they actually spend compared to the average American is more than enough to generate significant taxes. It's about actual amounts, not percentages. Dollars to dollars the uber rich will pay way more taxes than we will. Trying to rationalize taking more by percentages us just plain greedy.


rocketeerH t1_is3pp0z wrote

Wealthy people spend more, but they spend a lower percentage of their income.

Say you have a sales tax if of 7%. Someone making $1000/mo and spending 100% of it would owe $70 or 7% of their monthly income

Someone making $100,000/mo and spending $50,000 is living an extremely lavish lifestyle, no? They’d be paying $3,500 in taxes/mo. That’s 3.5% of their total income.

So while the rich person is paying a higher amount, they are paying a significantly lower percentage of their total income. The tax is a much higher burden on a person who must spend all of their money to survive than it is on someone who has a significant excess. This is why flat tax rates, like sales taxes, are called regressive - because they actively harm the poor.

The way to fix loopholes is to eliminate them from the tax code preexisting Progressive tax code, which taxes wealthy individuals at a higher rate, not change the code to something deliberately burdensome for the poor.


zorggalacticus t1_is3x54c wrote

And nobody cares what percentage of their income they pay. They're still paying more. Much more. And yes, it is fair. Being wealthy does not equate to owing some sort of debt to society. Those with more money are obviously going to save more money. Percentages don't matter at all. They don't owe you or me anything. Being salty because they get to keep more money is stupid. There is not nor will there ever be income equality. Federal sales tax works because Uber rich constantly evade income tax by keeping money in offshore accounts, tax deductions, loopholes, etc. Federal sales tax would eliminate that because you can't evade sales tax. Nobody cares how much they have left over. They'll be paying the same percentage as everyone else, and that's fair. They don't owe us anything. Nobody owes you anything. If I spend a dollar and pay 10 cents on sales tax, and they spend a million dollars and spend 10,000 on sales tax, we've both paid the same percentage in taxes but they've spent 9,999 dollars more in taxes. Anything more than that is just robbery, because once again they don't owe us anything. Same percentage for everybody. Poor people will pay far less in taxes than the rich. It works for everyone. Some people seem to thing that it's cool to just take a much money as possible from the rich because fuck rich people. It's no less morally reprehensible to steal from the rich than it is to steal from the poor. Income equality doesn't exist. And abolishing income tax will benefit everybody, poor and rich alike. No income tax means your 401k is not taxable anymore. Sold a car? Cool. You can keep all that money and only pay taxes on what you actually spend. Remove sales taxes on food and medicine. Tax everything else instead. Stop focusing on rich people because "it's not fair. They have more money than me. " life isn't fair and it never will be. Suck it up buttercup. Focus on things that will actually improve the lives of average citizens, like things that will put more money in their pockets. The poor aren't harmed by someone else that is in no way affecting their daily life keeping more money than them. Flat tax rates keep more money in your pocket period. All those extra taxes aren't actually helping average Americans. 90% of it goes to government projects and stuff that doesn't even benefit us. It's just another way to pad the pockets of politicians and create more government pork. Better to just let the average person keep more of their own money and stop looking at the rich like some sort of vast untapped resource. That money doesn't belong to you.


[deleted] t1_is3za7a wrote



zorggalacticus t1_is3zwl2 wrote

No it's not. The rich are not a resource. Keeping more of your own money is better. Always will be.


rocketeerH t1_is40puc wrote

Do you know what labor and capital are? Labor is literally the primary resource of our current economy. Workers are by definition resources. Resources generate wealth. Owners and capitalists increase profits by reducing labor costs - by paying their workers less.

You don’t owe the rich your discounted labor. You deserve a bigger piece of the pie than some rich guy wants to give you. You’re worth it.

There are three non-violent ways to get it. You can make yourself perfectly indispensable to the point you can essentially blackmail your boss into paying fairly. You can unionize and force them to pay everyone fairly. Or you can tax them and use that income to build infrastructure and provide services - services that you would be able to afford if they were to pay your fairly in the first place

The Waltons are worth hundreds of billions of dollars, yet most of their employees need government assistance to survive. A flat tax would both increase the need for those programs - by burdening the poor more - and decrease the funds available by reducing taxes on the rich.

Oh, do you know about the standard deduction? That person making $1000/mo may have taxes withheld from their check, but at the end of the year they get it back because their tax burden is 0%


zorggalacticus t1_is428cs wrote

Sales tax takes care of that. 10 cents on a dollar is going to be inconsequential to a poor person. But to the Uber rich it equates to millions of dollars per year in taxes. And they can't avoid paying out like the do income tax. If I make 40k a year, I'll have paid 76 dollars a week in taxes if I spend my entire paycheck. That's less that what I currently am paying in income tax right now, which helps me out. But a rich person who pulls in a million a year will pay 1,923 a week in taxes if they spent it all. One large purchase, like a luxury car or a boat, or even going out to high end restaurants will be exponentially more taxes than the average consumer will ever dream of paying. And I'd wager that you wouldn't collect any less taxes from the rich than from our current system full of tax breaks and loopholes. Tax accountants wouldn't be necessary. The IRS wouldn't have much to do. Those who don't work and are on welfare/food stamps are exempt from sales tax anyway. Sales tax isn't charged when you pay with welfare/ food stamp cards. So it really will only affect the working class (for the better) and the rich.


Stock_Rush2555 t1_is4qgaz wrote

The point you're making about "don't tax the rich" completely negates the point youre making about "tax the rich with sales tax!"

I don't think you understand the point of taxes. Rich people benefit from taxes too, and all the services they provide. Income tax is a smart solution, because it proportionally charges everyone for a functioning government. Wealthy people are charged more because they hoard a larger share of the global wealth, and that charge should affect them the same as it does for poor people.

It's really just a case of altruism vs selfishness. And while the majority of people are for helping others, and expanding government services, rich people are often not because money corrupts, and privilege makes them ignorant to what people go through. The rich are a minority - a dominating minority that exploit the rest for profit. It's fair that the "rest" of us want them taxed more - they're profiting off our backs.

What you're saying is "tax the rich more via sales tax" but also "don't tax the rich more, poor rich people"


XavvenFayne t1_is5j47t wrote

I agree with the premise of what you're saying here overall, on the contradiction you pointed out, and that sales tax is a regressive tax, and about the rich being a dominating minority etc.

One thing I'll add is that extremely wealthy individuals tend to have modest or even low income from wages, so relying on progressive income tax brackets alone still results in a tax system that is either flat, or not progressive enough. Progressive income tax is a smart choice but it doesn't go far enough IMO. Wealthy families gain an enormous amount of money from unrealized capital gains, dividends, and interest, all of which enjoy huge tax breaks.


zorggalacticus t1_is4v400 wrote

No, what I'm saying is it's useless to add more income tax because they'll just find ways to avoid it. Sales tax works better because they can't avoid it. Abolishing income tax will help the average consumer, and we won't notice much difference in the actual amount of taxes we pay because it will equal out to about the same or less than we pay now with a 10 cents on a dollar federal sales tax instead of income tax. And the whole "don't tax the rich" was directed at the proposed "wealth tax". Can't charge people taxes twice on the same money just because they have more. It also sets a precedent towards other things being taxed that historically weren't taxed. Don't think if we allow them to tax the bank accounts of the rich just because it's there that they won't also begin to go after our own savings, retirement accounts, pensions, etc. Adding a "wealth tax" sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us as well. It's like releasing a hungry lion on somebody and naively thinking it won't turn and destroy you when it's finished with them. We can't trust the government. That's been proven time and again. Passing a "wealth tax" will backfire massively on the rest of us because it opens up a whole can of worms that we don't want. Federal sales tax accomplishes the same thing without opening that can of worms. The average consumer won't notice much difference at all, but the rich will. And you can still keep state income tax, just abolish the federal.


Extra-Process-9394 t1_is53ju8 wrote

Ayo you don't gotta deepthroat the whole boot ya freak! Lmfaooooo ya ain't rich and ya never will be wake up


blackdragon8577 t1_is62zux wrote

My wife has maintained that if men had to go through what women do physically the entire world would be different.

Her main example is pregnancy. If men could get pregnant we would have already figured out a way to pop that fetus into a tube and have it grow at home because men would not put up with being pregnant and all that comes with it for 9 months.


focus503 t1_is5vwrm wrote

I agree. I lived overseas for a while and one of my girlfriend's was and had been involved in the national campaign to have VAT (sales tax) on sanitary products removed.

They finally succeeded a couple years ago I was happy for them.


EimaiOTed t1_is5d97v wrote

I’d go with “health insurance needs to cover them as preventative health”.


Nived6669 t1_is607h4 wrote

They can be paid for with HSA and FSA thanks to the CARES Act.


rooftopfilth t1_is61p9g wrote

Can’t incentivize letting women outside the home these days though.


Greenmind76 t1_is40e7c wrote

Condoms are pretty pricey and should also be tax deductible.


Firehed t1_is46kyl wrote

They should absolutely be tax free, but I wouldn't call them expensive.


Greenmind76 t1_is4huzg wrote

Skyn brand was the only brand my now ex could use and we spent more on those in a month than 3 months worth of her feminine hygiene products..then I got the snip snip.

Then she broke up with me. D:


---ShineyHiney--- t1_is5qv3b wrote

You cannot, at all, compare one woman’s feminine product needs to another. There is a WHOLLLLLLEEEEEEEE ASSSSSSSSS spectrum of possibilities in between


Greenmind76 t1_is5su8c wrote

I stated earlier that I feel they should be free or near free and was not attempting to make a comparison. My apologies. I've also dated or been married to several women who had extremely heavy flow. My now ex would wear diapers for the first 4-5 days, once she was able to work from home.


rc042 t1_is5enc4 wrote

Swing by your local planned Parenthood, you can pickup condoms for free there.


Greenmind76 t1_is5lr7k wrote

There is no planned parenthood where I live. I also got a vasectomy last year so other than STD prevention they're no longer necessary.


[deleted] t1_is4vy91 wrote



rc042 t1_is5ecil wrote

Welcome conservative! The "why" is because it is a basic human need. It is the right thing to do.

>Any real argument I think of leads to the thought that there are a heap of other things poor people need to live but are not subsidised.

This is not an either or situation. People should have everything they need to live. Basic human needs should be supplied to all individuals.


gammonbudju t1_is5i861 wrote

> Welcome conservative!

You think I'm right wing because I ask one question, that is amazingly narrow minded.

> The "why" is because it is a basic human need.

I'm male, I need razors. Should they be subsidised?


robit-the-robit t1_is5iol2 wrote

It is for the benefit of a society that young people are educated. However, girls who cannot afford menstrual products are forced to interrupt their education during their periods because they have to stay home. It benefits society to minimize the interruptions to education, and therefore, those who cannot afford it should be given menstrual products. Realistically, they are probably already unofficially subsidized by the school's nurse, either from the school's budget or from the nurse's own pocket.

Arguing against this is to argue for the creation of a subservient class of women.


[deleted] t1_is5ju5t wrote



gameguyswifey t1_is5ovw0 wrote

Do you actually think that 12 tampons is all that everyone needs per month? If so, you are laughably uninformed. If not, then you are not arguing in good faith. Either way, your factual premise is severely flawed.


[deleted] t1_is5xa6n wrote



DefTotesSeriously t1_is7j9tm wrote

I have to ask...exactly where on this earth do you live??? 'Cause the last package of tampons I bought contained 40 ultras (for over-achieving bleeders), and it was just shy of $20.

And NO, shaving supplies are NOT an equivalent to female sanitary products.

A person decides to shave...or not to shave.

A menstruating female menstruates.


[deleted] t1_is7ug8a wrote



DefTotesSeriously t1_is8crbn wrote the following was not a response you posted:

"I'm male, I need razors. Should they be subsidised?"


[deleted] t1_is8f317 wrote



DefTotesSeriously t1_is93pub wrote

>I guess you're referring to one of my comments where I mention shaving then edited it out?

Your post is still up, and it reads exactly as was quoted.

>Although I only compared shaving products to tampons

Correct, and I refuted your comparison.

>I thought someone will straw man that argument. Misrepresenting that comment, saying I think these things are 100% equivalent. Which you just did

I made no intimation that I know what you do or do not think. I simply pointed out the lack of veracity in a comparative statement you used in an attempt to discredit the cause of those in support of tax credits and/or subsidies for women's sanitary products.

IMHO, suggesting I've not only misundstood but have also blatantly misrepresented your comment by way of a straw man fallacy is, at once, both puerile and pathetic.


TorahSlut353 t1_is3i1wy wrote

if they wanted to take it a step further i can only see this being a rly good marketing technique :

> Sell menstrual products at cost

> Instant free advertisement from news coverage of your new policy

> Become the store that everyone goes to for menstrual products

> Works the same way as costco's 5$ rotisserie chicken but at a lower cost to the business and gets people in the store


CamCamCakes t1_is56r0b wrote

The problem for CVS is that EVERYTHING ELSE in the store is 10-20% more than everywhere else. I’m forced to get my scripts there because of our health insurance, but I never buy anything else.


UnpopularCrayon t1_is58e1m wrote

I printed a photo there for 46 cents. So at least there is something in there that's fairly reasonably priced.


11lincolnSTRONG t1_is65npi wrote

You can print that same photo for 12 cents at Walmart


UnpopularCrayon t1_is6hhvo wrote

I don't know that I every knew Walmart had photo printing! Is it like a kiosk at the front of the store or something?


FartingBob t1_is5ruoq wrote

That sounds like an even better reason to have a loss leader though.


Iagent2022 t1_is6sz7q wrote

Same here, EVERYTHING is much more expensive. I preferred Walgreens but with the change in insurance, I had to go to CVS, they're horrible


kickit08 t1_is4ambv wrote

That could work honestly, but I think the problem is that then everybody would do it, and it would then promptly become unprofitable because there would no longer be a draw. Alternatively who ever has the cheapest supply chain wins out, and everybody is forced to sell them at dirt cheap, and the selection narrows because it doesn’t really make them money.

If they wanted to do it and not lose fuck tons of money they would bundle it with things that people want when on their period, like pain killers or something else that they would want right then.

I’m no economist but this is about how I would imagine it going.


TorahSlut353 t1_is4gcq4 wrote

i mean makes sense but all supermarkets carry items that they sell at cost because they are staples that bring people into the store

Electronics (apple products, video games) are examples of items that places like wal-mart carry which make them literal cents of profit. Bananas are also a common produce item which is sold extremely close to cost. This isnt a new concept


ThatSandwich t1_is5gwdh wrote

Yeah the margins on a lot of electronics are honestly pathetic. Manufacturers and vendors have worked their asses off to move as much margin over to them from the retailer for the past few years.


I_Upvote_Goldens t1_is3o0i6 wrote

That’s not saying much. CVS’s prices on all products are outrageous to begin with.


WannabeAsianNinja t1_is44ity wrote


"The pharmacy chain on Tuesday said it would reduce by 25% the cost of CVS Health brand tampons, menstrual pads, liners and cups at core locations on or before Thursday, October 13"

The core locations will be at these states:

-Arkansas -Georgia -Hawaii -Louisiana -Missouri -South Carolina -Tennessee -Texas -Utah -Virginia -West Virginia -Wisconsin

"CVS is also working with other organizations to eliminate menstrual taxes altogether, according to the company, which operates 9,900 retail outlets in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. "

"As of 2021, five states — Arkansas, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon — had no sales tax. At the same time, 15 states exempted period products from sales tax: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington. 

Since then, other states have followed suit. Colorado in August stopped charging a sales tax on diapers, incontinence and menstrual products"


rabblebowser t1_is3rmbo wrote

Probably because no one was buying overpriced store brand CVS tampons.


Famous-Prize4207 t1_is4d0q4 wrote

PSA ladies for the sake of your comfort and also cost - please try a menstrual cup!!

It doesn’t work for everyone but if it does it can change your life. Totally reusable, leak-proof, longer lasting, and safer.


HouseOfAplesaus t1_is2yg99 wrote

Ill drive a hour there and a hour back to a cvs for .06 on the dollar cheaper. Hell yeah. Might as well get that .01 cheaper gas while I’m there. Win.


JimBeam823 t1_is525pe wrote

Yeah, a lot has been written about something that costs women less than a couple of dollars a month.

FWIW, I have a wife and two daughters in a state that taxes tampons. The tax is really not a noticeable expense in our family budget.

That’s why I’m against sales tax exemptions in general. Politicians get a lot of credit for essentially nothing.


africanasshat t1_is3juhv wrote

It’s amazing how corporations have to push every essential thing they can find to the limits. It’s just never enough with them.


nsk_nyc t1_is3kt4b wrote

Trying to look good after being caught overcharging the government and everyone else?


Trick_sleep t1_is53zqt wrote

“Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.”


blackdragon8577 t1_is63ev1 wrote

Please not Virginia, please not Virginia...

Dammit. I absolutely hate being lumped in with the likes of Arkansas, Missouri, and South Carolina.


AutoModerator t1_is1y9hs wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


NockTauk t1_is5bn0g wrote

Do republican women like these type of changes or would they rather pay the same the amount or possibly double? I wonder...


rc042 t1_is5fb9t wrote

Lol: "New Tampax double-tax: same tampon twice the price. The tampon for people who hate the idea of people getting basic necessities. Available in camouflage and MAGA red"


Cityplanner1 t1_is5fkz4 wrote

Wouldn’t this help to lessen the likelihood that those states would ever remove the tax?


tuppydog t1_is5o2i0 wrote

Everything at CVS is so much higher priced, but they sure don’t cut corners on the mile long paper receipts!.


stonerbumblebee t1_is6j7tt wrote

As a Wisconsinite, wahoo I guess. I'd rather marijuana be legalized:\


cabeeza t1_is54zqo wrote

Why tampons and not insulin? Or just soap? (we all use it, don't we?

I love how people think that a subsidized tampon is the holy grial while sooner or later they will be screwed by for-profit healthcare.


rc042 t1_is5f286 wrote

100% these should be free and covered by a single payer not-for-profit health care!