[Submitted] Pink Tax Ban

[The New California Republic]

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

OOC: Off-topic? Where? I am seeing justified criticism...

[Quantipapa]

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

OOC: Off-topic? Where? I am seeing justified criticism...

Your comments are not welcome. You respond to everything with a report.

[Aureumterra]

This proposal is extremely flawed, especially due to the lack of forum drafting

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

All criticism is justified

[Quantipapa]

[quote="Aureumterra";p="34700513"]This proposal is extremely flawed, especially due to the lack of forum drafting

This is an unproductive comment

[Aureumterra]

This proposal is extremely flawed, especially due to the lack of forum drafting

This is an unproductive comment

"Well, I mean what can I say? It’s already hastily been submitted, I’m just voicing my opinion” Ambassador Wyse says with a hint of rolling his eyes

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Off-topic? Where? I am seeing justified criticism...

Your comments are not welcome. You respond to everything with a report.

OOC: Ha. No. There are no closed threads in the World Assembly forums, you can't stop me from posting here.

[Grenartia]

This proposal is extremely flawed, especially due to the lack of forum drafting

This is an unproductive comment

Just because you don't like what's being said, doesn't mean the criticism is unproductive. You have received nothing but constructive criticism here. You should take it to heart and use it to further refine your proposal until its adequate enough for resubmission.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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

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.

I should add to the preceding that "better" also doesn't necessarily mean "legal" [per the proposal rules]. The intent of ~95% of people posting in threads like these is to help you improve your proposal. Turning up your nose at such assistance will not get you anywhere productive.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 2 seems very harsh, seeing as it would have to be applied to things that bear no resemblance to the finished product. Every stage of production would include the raw materials that might not even be designed for a ‘pink’ product, but mass-produced for a variety of purposes. An exemption for those would be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.”

[Quantipapa]

Already deemed illegal by people who don't think it's discriminatory. It's clear we have different ideas of what discrimination means, but ok. Nothing left to talk about here.

[The New California Republic]

Already deemed illegal by people who don't think it's discriminatory. It's clear we have different ideas of what discrimination means, but ok. Nothing left to talk about here.

OOC: Change the tag in the title to [ABANDONED] if you have abandoned it.

[Quantipapa]

Already deemed illegal by people who don't think it's discriminatory. It's clear we have different ideas of what discrimination means, but ok. Nothing left to talk about here.

OOC: Change the tag in the title to [ABANDONED] if you have abandoned it.

Officially muted.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Change the tag in the title to [ABANDONED] if you have abandoned it.

Officially muted.

OOC: ...what...?

[Quantipapa]

Officially muted.

OOC: ...what...?

Can't hear you. What?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Already deemed illegal by people who don't think it's discriminatory. It's clear we have different ideas of what discrimination means, but ok. Nothing left to talk about here.

This'll be my last go at leading a horse to water.

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.

[Quantipapa]

Already deemed illegal by people who don't think it's discriminatory. It's clear we have different ideas of what discrimination means, but ok. Nothing left to talk about here.

This'll be my last go at leading a horse to water.

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.

I understand and accept your explanation. Thank you for your patience.

[Quantipapa]

But please I am not a horse.

[Wallenburg]

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.

Such an argument would depend on the incorrect assumption that only women buy feminine hygiene products.

[Sciongrad]

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.

OOC: Is this satire? What is the "free market"? How can you disentangle cultural norms and stereotypes from so-called market forces? The prices assigned to goods are more than the product of some supply and demand math equation, despite what I'm sure your Econ 100 professor told you. Markets and pricing are fundamentally embedded in social relations and culture. Women don't pay more for their deodorant because somehow, it's better than men's and therefore women are freely entering into some type of implicit agreement with producers and retailers that their demand is higher. Instead, gender norms and expectations vis-a-vis hygiene and work and leisure encourage men to buy "men's" products and women to buy "women's" products. There is no reason women pay more for a pink "women's" Bic pen, special tooth brushes or deodorant, that can be explained by your intro level economism.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: ...what...?

Can't hear you. What?

You can't hear me but yet you respond...?

[New Excalibus]

The Pink Tax doesn't exist, it never has. Men's products cost less than women's because men generally use the products more often. The Pink Tax is simply a device that some feminists use to prove "inequality". (I have nothing against feminists, only against the ones that are so annoying they actually tip the inequality over to the men's side.)

[Wallenburg]

There is no reason women pay more for a pink "women's" Bic pen, special tooth brushes or deodorant, that can be explained by your intro level economism.

There are women's toothbrushes?

Wait, there are men's toothbrushes? Is there something fundamentally different about male and female teeth that I'm missing?

[The New California Republic]

There is no reason women pay more for a pink "women's" Bic pen, special tooth brushes or deodorant, that can be explained by your intro level economism.

There are women's toothbrushes?

Wait, there are men's toothbrushes? Is there something fundamentally different about male and female teeth that I'm missing?

OOC: I think "women's" toothbrushes are pink and glittery or something, I assume that is what is being implied here. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[New Excalibus]

There are women's toothbrushes?

Wait, there are men's toothbrushes? Is there something fundamentally different about male and female teeth that I'm missing?

OOC: I think "women's" toothbrushes are pink and glittery or something, I assume that is what is being implied here. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe they're toothbrushes that are better optimized for women- we're getting off topic.

[Parcia]

This.

This.

Is why I left the WA.

As for the thread...if the female products on average cost more, does it not make sense in a modern capitalist society to charge more for it to even out the cash?