Discriminatory pricing, the ‘Pink Tax,’ needs fixing

By Angie Hund | Manor Ink

Gender-based price discrimination is present in many expenses throughout our lifetimes. From clothes, razors and hygiene products to elderly care and mortgages, women frequently pay more than men. Often, women’s products are priced higher and taxed more than similar products for intended men; this phenomenon is known as the “Pink Tax.”

Though the tendency is described as a “tax,” it isn’t a line that appears on your income tax form. Instead, Pink Tax refers to extra costs to women due to gender-based price discrimination. Statistically, by the time an American woman has turned forty, she is expected to pay more than $40,000 in Pink Tax overages.

Higher prices for something as superficial as a product’s color variant are a common example of how the Pink Tax works. A company may sell a pink version of their product for more than the blue version. Typically, those products meant for women will cost anywhere from 25 cents to a dollar more than the same product intended for men.

Menstrual products and more

For those familiar with the Pink Tax, the most notable example may be found in period products such as pads, tampons, and menstrual cups. Though these are a necessity for many women, states across the nation tax them as luxury items. Menstrual products are typically not included in men’s monthly budgets; they are, however, a direct drain on women’s pocketbooks.

Thousands of retail items were found to incorporate the Pink Tax. In a 2015 government study conducted across the country, researchers found that of 800 gender-specific products from nearly 100 brands, personal care products marketed to women were 13 percent more expensive than similar men’s products. Hundreds of well-known products used daily incorporate the Pink Tax in their final price tag. Whether it’s clothing, personal care items, menstrual products or children’s toys, the tax is nearly impossible to avoid. It also appears that auto repair expenses, mortgages and medical devices such as braces are subject to the tax.

States such as California and New York have passed laws intended to eliminate gender-based pricing. With the support of large communities in each state, there have also been many attempts to pass a Pink Tax ban at the federal level.

The inception of the Pink Tax

When did companies begin profiting off of women’s products specifically?

Since the establishment of the US tax system in the 1930s, gender-based pricing has been present. However, it wasn’t until the late 1970s that using the color pink to differentiate women’s products from men’s grew in popularity. As America advances in the corporate and manufacturing worlds, gender-based packaging continues to enable price discrimination.

In 1994, the California Senate Office of Research published a study revealing that 64 percent of businesses in five major cities charged more to clean a woman’s shirt than a man’s. The study exposed the unfair increase in women’s daily expenses, leading to the approval of the Gender Tax Repeal. This act prohibits a business or establishment from discriminating against persons based on gender.

The Pink Tax is only one aspect of gender bias when it comes to finances. Women’s wages is another. A study done by the US Dept. of Labor found that women working full-time year-round, earn on average 83.7 percent of what men in equivalent positions earn, an annual income difference of about $10,000.

Despite the Pink Tax exacting a toll on women’s finances, health and everyday life, the pricing is not only a female issue. Charging more for identical products and marketing them to women is a clear indication that many corporations take advantage of the already disadvantaged. Gender-based pricing discrimination is a notable flaw in our systems and should catch the attention of every consumer, female or not.

Angie Hund is editor-in-chief of Manor Ink.