[Submitted] Pink Tax Ban

[Quantipapa]

Seeking to end gender-based discrimination, this resolution aims to take a major step forward in advancing the cause within the commercial and consumer sector by enforcing a tax exemption on essential "pink" items. This resolution ensures that all women have access to basic sanitary aid.

Definitions:

"Pink" items - Commonly associated with female products, this resolution does not exempt all gender-based products, but those essential to everyday health and hygiene. Specifically, sanitary-related products.

This resolution ensures that:
1. No tax can be levied on the transaction of "pink" items. These items are either exempted from tax, or zero-rated.
2. This tax-exemption be applied on every stage of transaction - from factory to shelf.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
But does taxing items that happen to be used by only one gender really constitute "discrimination"... or is it giving an exemption for items used by one gender and not for items used by the other gender[s] as well that does so? I'm inclined to say the latter, especially where [for example] it's just one aspect of a 'sales tax' that applies to all goods purchased retail...
I haven't labelled this as illegal for contradiction of existing legislation (GAR #17, clause 8 ) yet, but am considering the possibility.

[Quantipapa]

OOC
But does taxing items that happen to be used by only one gender really constitute "discrimination"... or is it giving an exemption for items used by one gender and not for items used by the other gender[s] as well that does so? I'm inclined to say the latter, especially where [for example] it's just one aspect of a 'sales tax' that applies to all goods purchased retail...
I haven't labelled this as illegal for contradiction of existing legislation (GAR #17, clause 8 ) yet, but am considering the possibility.

It's discrimination if - other items that constitute basic needs are tax exempt, and sanitary products are mislabeled as health and beauty products along with perfumes and makeup for example. This is an everyday need for the general health of a woman, and the targeted exemption helps make it easier for women to access this basic need.

[Tinhampton]

Why did you submit this without drafting? Or is this in response to Nohtasha doing the same with her Women's Products Act?

[Athonuna]

Yes, but have you considered that women's hygiene products, like razors, for example, cost more to make than men's products? Women have much more to shave with a razor than men on average, and hence have more stuff added to the blade. That's just one example, but I think it's a good example of how this isn't discrimination. It's the free market. It's simple supply and demand. Women only have to pay more because they're getting more than men get. Besides, I could probably go to Walmart right now and find a women's razor that costs less than a men's razor. There are different brands, you know.

[Quantipapa]

Yes, but have you considered that women's hygiene products, like razors, for example, cost more to make than men's products? Women have much more to shave with a razor than men on average, and hence have more stuff added to the blade. That's just one example, but I think it's a good example of how this isn't discrimination. It's the free market. It's simple supply and demand. Women only have to pay more because they're getting more than men get. Besides, I could probably go to Walmart right now and find a women's razor that costs less than a men's razor. There are different brands, you know.

So you don't consider a pad a basic need. Ok

[Quantipapa]

Why did you submit this without drafting? Or is this in response to Nohtasha doing the same with her Women's Products Act?

This is better.

[Athonuna]

Yes, but have you considered that women's hygiene products, like razors, for example, cost more to make than men's products? Women have much more to shave with a razor than men on average, and hence have more stuff added to the blade. That's just one example, but I think it's a good example of how this isn't discrimination. It's the free market. It's simple supply and demand. Women only have to pay more because they're getting more than men get. Besides, I could probably go to Walmart right now and find a women's razor that costs less than a men's razor. There are different brands, you know.

So you don't consider a pad a basic need. Ok

You can't respond to my argument with a flippant rhetorical question; it discredits you.

[Quantipapa]

So you don't consider a pad a basic need. Ok

You can't respond to my argument with a flippant rhetorical question; it discredits you.

It wasn't a question. It was a realisation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Why did you submit this without drafting? Or is this in response to Nohtasha doing the same with her Women's Products Act?

This is better.

OOC: "Better" doesn't necessarily mean "ready for submission." The point of drafting these things here in the forum is to actually draft them, i.e. get feedback from other players on ways to improve it. The intended result isn't just to make a resolution (the international law by which the nations of the world comport themselves[!]) that's "better than that guy's version," but one that's literally the best possible law you could ever make. Yes, this is better, but that's a pretty low bar. Try to aim a bit higher and you'll get the true respect of the GA community.

[Athonuna]

You can't respond to my argument with a flippant rhetorical question; it discredits you.

It wasn't a question. It was a realisation.

What you're doing is very petty; it doesn't make you look professional. If you'd like to present an argument, I'd gladly debate it with you.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
But does taxing items that happen to be used by only one gender really constitute "discrimination"... or is it giving an exemption for items used by one gender and not for items used by the other gender[s] as well that does so? I'm inclined to say the latter, especially where [for example] it's just one aspect of a 'sales tax' that applies to all goods purchased retail...
I haven't labelled this as illegal for contradiction of existing legislation (GAR #17, clause 8 ) yet, but am considering the possibility.

It's discrimination if - other items that constitute basic needs are tax exempt, and sanitary products are mislabeled as health and beauty products along with perfumes and makeup for example.

OOC
Are you relying on an assumption that this is the case in all WA members? There are bound to be some where that isn't the case, and those items are only covered by a general sales tax that covers other "basic needs" as well.
Having thought this over, I am labelling it as illegal for contradiction of GA Resolution #17, clause 8.

[Kenmoria]

“Opposed. Not only was this submitted without any period of drafting, it also arguably contradicts legislation on discrimination, and Kenmoria is opposed to a ban on tax on ‘pink’ products anyway.”

[Liberimery]

This is better.

OOC: "Better" doesn't necessarily mean "ready for submission." The point of drafting these things here in the forum is to actually draft them, i.e. get feedback from other players on ways to improve it. The intended result isn't just to make a resolution (the international law by which the nations of the world comport themselves[!]) that's "better than that guy's version," but one that's literally the best possible law you could ever make. Yes, this is better, but that's a pretty low bar. Try to aim a bit higher and you'll get the true respect of the GA community.

OOC: I'm getting to a point where I'd like to know if it's possible to get a rule against submitting before drafting.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Don't you mean drafting? Just curious.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Submitted without drafting. Not a good sign. I'm not convinced that having standard taxes on these items constitutes discrimination.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC
Are you relying on an assumption that this is the case in all WA members? There are bound to be some where that isn't the case, and those items are only covered by a general sales tax that covers other "basic needs" as well.
Having thought this over, I am labelling it as illegal for contradiction of GA Resolution #17, clause 8.

Are you arguing that because discrimination might not be happening in all WA nations, the proposal is illegal under GA 17's internal taxation clause? If that's the case, then the exception is absolutely completely useless.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC
Are you relying on an assumption that this is the case in all WA members? There are bound to be some where that isn't the case, and those items are only covered by a general sales tax that covers other "basic needs" as well.
Having thought this over, I am labelling it as illegal for contradiction of GA Resolution #17, clause 8.

Are you arguing that because discrimination might not be happening in all WA nations, the proposal is illegal under GA 17's internal taxation clause? If that's the case, then the exception is absolutely completely useless.

OOC: I don't read it that way. The clear thinking behind that exception is to allow prohibition of actually discriminatory taxation - e.g. taxing Bigtopians at a higher rate than natural born citizens (taken care of by GAR #35, but a concern upon passage of #17), or taxing gender transition surgery at a higher rate than facelifts and liposuction.

Applying ordinary sales tax on feminine hygiene items isn't discriminatory if the same tax is applied to other toiletries. Waiving such taxes is inarguably helpful in fighting poverty (though not as helpful as, say, supplying these items free to women below certain income levels), but it's hard to make the case that in a WA that contains Resolution #344, sales taxes on some items are inherently discriminatory based on their use. Everyone needs soap and shampoo and deodorant; women need tampons and pads as well. If these things are taxed at the same rate, there's no discrimination.

Now, if the author wanted to assert that pads and tampons are more necessary to women than soap, shampoo, or deodorant are to anybody, that would be sufficient for me to mark this legal under the theory that equal taxation with those other items is inherently discriminatory - as equal per-ounce taxes on (e.g.) baby formula and roquefort cheese possibly discriminate against infants (and their families), who absolutely require the former for fundamental nutrition. OR, the author could argue that since women require pads or tampons in addition to the other necessities, while children and men have no such additional needs, taxation on those items constitutes an additional (and therefore discriminatory) tax upon being a woman. That would suffice as well. It would then be up to voters to determine if they agree with that argument.

[Liberimery]

Don't you mean drafting? Just curious.

OOC: Yes. Don't know how the abominable "B" word got in there. Editing now.

[Frisbeeteria]

OOC: I'm getting to a point where I'd like to know if it's possible to get a rule against submitting before drafting.

That won't be happening. There are players who can't participate in the forums for a variety of reasons - being underage, being in a class region, being forumbanned, etc. Then there are players who prefer to draft offsite in regional forums, Discord servers, etc. We're not going to accept a rule that shuts them out of the process.

At the same time, there also won't be a rule preventing you from voting AGAINST a proposal that wasn't drafted on the forums. Lots of people have an automatic negative reaction to non-drafted proposals. Also, a lot of them break other rules anyway, so it's not like a drafting rule is needed all that often.

[Wallenburg]

Such a tax would contradict "World Assembly General Fund" by my understanding, since enacting legislation with regards to particular produces does not actually tackle "unfair discrimination". In fact, if anything, such a ban supports unfair discrimination, albeit in a very indirect manner.

[Bears Armed]

Are you arguing that because discrimination might not be happening in all WA nations, the proposal is illegal under GA 17's internal taxation clause? If that's the case, then the exception is absolutely completely useless.

OOC: I don't read it that way. The clear thinking behind that exception is to allow prohibition of actually discriminatory taxation - e.g. taxing Bigtopians at a higher rate than natural born citizens (taken care of by GAR #35, but a concern upon passage of #17), or taxing gender transition surgery at a higher rate than facelifts and liposuction.

Applying ordinary sales tax on feminine hygiene items isn't discriminatory if the same tax is applied to other toiletries.

Waiving such taxes is inarguably helpful in fighting poverty (though not as helpful as, say, supplying these items free to women below certain income levels), but it's hard to make the case that in a WA that contains Resolution #344, sales taxes on some items are inherently discriminatory based on their use. Everyone needs soap and shampoo and deodorant; women need tampons and pads as well. If these things are taxed at the same rate, there's no discrimination.

Now, if the author wanted to assert that pads and tampons are more necessary to women than soap, shampoo, or deodorant are to anybody, that would be sufficient for me to mark this legal under the theory that equal taxation with those other items is inherently discriminatory - as equal per-ounce taxes on (e.g.) baby formula and roquefort cheese possibly discriminate against infants (and their families), who absolutely require the former for fundamental nutrition. OR, the author could argue that since women require pads or tampons in addition to the other necessities, while children and men have no such additional needs, taxation on those items constitutes an additional (and therefore discriminatory) tax upon being a woman. That would suffice as well. It would then be up to voters to determine if they agree with that argument.

OOC
Thank you for explaining this more thoroughly than I did. Full agreement.

[Roast Pork]

OOC: I don't read it that way. The clear thinking behind that exception is to allow prohibition of actually discriminatory taxation - e.g. taxing Bigtopians at a higher rate than natural born citizens (taken care of by GAR #35, but a concern upon passage of #17), or taxing gender transition surgery at a higher rate than facelifts and liposuction.

Applying ordinary sales tax on feminine hygiene items isn't discriminatory if the same tax is applied to other toiletries.

Waiving such taxes is inarguably helpful in fighting poverty (though not as helpful as, say, supplying these items free to women below certain income levels), but it's hard to make the case that in a WA that contains Resolution #344, sales taxes on some items are inherently discriminatory based on their use. Everyone needs soap and shampoo and deodorant; women need tampons and pads as well. If these things are taxed at the same rate, there's no discrimination.

Now, if the author wanted to assert that pads and tampons are more necessary to women than soap, shampoo, or deodorant are to anybody, that would be sufficient for me to mark this legal under the theory that equal taxation with those other items is inherently discriminatory - as equal per-ounce taxes on (e.g.) baby formula and roquefort cheese possibly discriminate against infants (and their families), who absolutely require the former for fundamental nutrition. OR, the author could argue that since women require pads or tampons in addition to the other necessities, while children and men have no such additional needs, taxation on those items constitutes an additional (and therefore discriminatory) tax upon being a woman. That would suffice as well. It would then be up to voters to determine if they agree with that argument.

OOC
Thank you for explaining this more thoroughly than I did. Full agreement.

Hello there, sorry for jumping in. I notice the gentlemen actually submitted this proposal and I've been following this thread. Regarding the subject of discrimination, I just wanted to clarify - would it be considered discriminatory if an argument is sufficiently made that women's hygiene products are more of a necessity compared to - say - shampoo?. I'm not so much agreeing or disagreeing, just trying to understand where the gridlock is and figuring out the proposal mechanics.

[Quantipapa]

Thank you all for completely derailing a good idea and taking it way off topic.

[Frisbeeteria]

Thank you all for completely derailing a good idea and taking it way off topic.

The topic is always "is this legal". I'm seeing very little in the way of off-topic comments, none of which derailed this thread. You should have posted a [DRAFT] first instead of submitting.