The ‘tampon tax’ fight has reached D.C

[Beaudreaux]

Interesting. What I take from this is that it could be argued that the sales tax the poor pays for these items more than comes back to them in the form of financial aid.

I don't have the data at hand to support that supposition, but I agree with the likelihood of it being correct. I've been trying to find the data to back it up since I eluded to it above by asking the question I asked and then described the offset difference, but just haven't found it yet. Although, given the high percentage of overall revenue sourced solely from Sales and Use Tax in NC it is a safe conclusion that, at the very least, a major reduction in revenue to the General Fund from this revenue source would devastate the social program budgets of the state which undoubtedly would devastate the poor that rely upon those programs.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I never listed clothing as a necessity. For the most part, clothing should be considered a "luxury" item mainly because of how much most people actually do have.

You must not live around people similar to those I live around, or like those that I'm related to for that matter. Trust me. Clothing is not a luxury, but a necessity. However, I would agree that certain clothing items are not a necessity and are therefore a luxury (like $250.00 tennis shoes, or pretty much anything made by Calvin Klein) but there are general clothing items that are in fact a necessity (like warm coats in the winter). The only reason I mentioned clothing, is because when I hear or read a proposal from most Progressives that lists what they consider a necessity that the poor should be given, clothing is usually on that list.

I don't care if we tax them or not though, I'm just countering the claims that this isn't a necessity item.

I don't think I ever said it wasn't, but if I did, I apologize for the confusion and retract it.

It is a necessity for women within a certain age range so I have no issue (as some seem to) for them to be pushing for this exemption.

Well, just because something is a necessity to someone doesn't mean that it should be tax exempt. If that were the case, then no food, or gasoline, or cars, or houses, or other necessary items would be taxed and would be tax exempt, and our government would cease to exist but in name alone.

This doesn't necessarily mean I fully support every effort for it, only that I'm not going to demonize or berate people pushing for it when they do make some legitimate points.

Although I do feel it is silly and by saying that I am patronizing them (Gloria Steinem in particular), I don't feel it is necessary to demonize or berate them to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the movement.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Oh really? Considering that you've never had a period before, why do you consider yourself to be qualified to discuss them?

Because the issue isn't periods, it's a taxes on tampons.
Hell, why did you bring it up?

The person you're quoting was talking about taxes and you brought up the effects of a menstruation.
Check your privilege.

 

[ajn678]

Your opinion is duly noted.

My girlfriend is a female and never once have I heard her complain about the taxes on her tampons.

 

[Phys251]

My girlfriend is a female and never once have I heard her complain about the taxes on her tampons.

I refer you to my previous answer.

 

[Phys251]

Because the issue isn't periods, it's a taxes on tampons.
Hell, why did you bring it up?

The person you're quoting was talking about taxes and you brought up the effects of a menstruation.
Check your privilege.

Privilege? Oh, you want to have a discussion about privilege, and the ways by which people with privilege fiercely defend that privilege?

By all means, let's have that discussion.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Privilege? Oh, you want to have a discussion about privilege, and the ways by which people with privilege fiercely defend that privilege?

By all means, let's have that discussion.

You're just strawmaning that person's position.
It's the fallback tactic of social justice police, when they have nothing else intelligent to say.

No I don't want to discuss your kafkatrap.

 

[ajn678]

I refer you to my previous answer.

I refer you to a logic class at your local community college. You based your opinion on the subject on a couple women that you know and what they have said about their periods. I referred to my girlfriend and her never once thinking its unfair that tampons are taxed.

 

[Phys251]

You're just strawmaning that person's position.
It's the fallback tactic of social justice police,

LOL, I didn't know I was a police officer.

when they have nothing else intelligent to say.

No I don't want to discuss your kafkatrap.

Oh so you're going to bring up an issue and not want to discuss it. I see how this is going to work.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

LOL, I didn't know I was a police officer.

It was rather obvious.
You attempted to devalue that person's opinion, solely based on their gender.

Oh so you're going to bring up an issue and not want to discuss it. I see how this is going to work.

It was a smart ass comment.
No I do not want to discuss your circular, nonfalsifiable, guilt assuming, logical fallacy.

 

[Phys251]

It was rather obvious.
You attempted to devalue that person's opinion, solely based on their gender.

Nice assumption. You know what they say happens when people assume.

It was a smart ass comment.
No I do not want to discuss your circular, nonfalsifiable, guilt assuming, logical fallacy.

I like that. Clever game. Bring up a topic, and then when your opponent responds to it, criticize them and refuse to discuss that topic any further. Well-played!

I'm gonna have to file that one. I might need it myself someday!

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Nice assumption. You know what they say happens when people assume.

Not an assumption.
You've done it twice.

You're using gender as a means of silencing people.
You're literally a stereotype of the neo social justice movement.

I like that. Clever game. Bring up a topic, and then when your opponent responds to it, criticize them and refuse to discuss that topic any further. Well-played!

I'm gonna have to file that one. I might need it myself someday!

We've already done your dance.
You set up a kafkatrap by using that guy linked in your sig as an attack, it fails horribly because it's a logical fallacy.

 

[X Factor]

You didn't answer the question. What is the reasoning behind having tax exemptions on medical supplies, or food and other products for that matter. That is a very important part of why people are asking for an exemption on pads and tampons.

Honestly, just from viewing this thread, it doesn't appear to be so much about finances or money, it looks more like some consider this to be an unfair tax on women or that the tax itself is intended to show bais against or hatred toward women.

 

[Henrin]

Honestly, just from viewing this thread, it doesn't appear to be so much about finances or money, it looks more like some consider this to be an unfair tax on women or that the tax itself is intended to show bais against or hatred toward women.

What is pathetic about this whole debate is that over a woman's lifetime she will spend less than two grand on tampons. Go ahead and break that down per month if you want. See why I'm not taking their complaints as serious?

On a more humorous note, one of the links I got when I searched for it on google put chocolate as a necessary expense of women. :lamo

 

[roguenuke]

Honestly, just from viewing this thread, it doesn't appear to be so much about finances or money, it looks more like some consider this to be an unfair tax on women or that the tax itself is intended to show bais against or hatred toward women.

Some do consider this to be an unfair tax on women, which I don't consider really true. Others just consider it to be unfair if the reason that other exemptions are in place is due to those things being considered necessities.