# data[].attributes.body
Twin sisters Helen and Rachel Lee saw the unfair "pink tax" on feminine products four years ago. They began a successful advocacy to repeal it, and voiced their opinions and data they found throughout the journey. They started a petition, engaged in social media campaigns, worked with legislators, and collaborated with organizations. The twins are now launching a company called PRISM Backpacks with a focus to educate students about gender equality and menstrual health, believing they are making a positive impact.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about what the "Pink tax" is, and the data that studies have shown to prove it. The "Pink tax" refers to the higher prices women pay for gender-specific products compared to men. Studies have shown that women are charged more for items such as razors, clothing, toys, and personal care products. On average, female-targeted products cost 7% more than gender-neutral or male-targeted equivalents. This pricing inequality adds to the overall wage gap between men and women. Despite efforts to address the issue, it remains present in our society, with factors like labor intensity and marketing strategies contributing to the disparities.

# data[].attributes.body
This article also describes what the "Pink Tax" is, examples of the"Pink Tax", "Pink Tax" laws and regulations put in place, how much the "Pink Tax" can charge woman compared to men, and an explanation on what the "Tampon Tax" is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just a while ago it was Mother's Day when many of us give additional thought to the important women in our lives. But every month is a good time to look at the "pink tax." The pink tax isn't a federal tax that can affect your income tax refund, but it is a type of price discrimination that impacts millions of women's personal finances and lives each year.

Pink Tax Explained

The pink tax often refers to state sales tax on menstrual products, like tampons, and feminine pads. Those feminine hygiene products are necessities for many women. But, many states tax feminine products as luxury items, while exempting other necessities, like groceries and medicine, from sales tax.

And, because men typically don't pay the same high prices for their personal care items (and feminine hygiene products are designed for women), the added cost on feminine and other products marketed to women has been dubbed "the pink tax." Why pink? Well, pink is the color that is often used by manufacturers to market and brand products that are designed for women.

Examples of the Pink Tax

The pink tax doesn't only apply to feminine care products. Over the years, advocacy organizations have pointed to different examples of the pink tax that include pricing discrimination involving both goods and services. Some examples include:

higher dry-cleaning or tailoring costs for women's clothing;

higher cost and often smaller sizes of products like women's razors, shampoo, and deodorant, relative to the cost and size of similar personal hygiene products designed for men (e.g., when a pink razor costs more than a similar black, or blue razor); and

higher prices of toys or equipment marketed to girls, like pink bikes, scooters, and helmets costing more than identical red or blue bikes, scooters and helmets.

The Period Tax (or Tampon Tax): What is it?

What is the Period Tax? You may also have heard the term "tampon tax." The tampon tax or "period tax" also refers to the sales tax on the already high price of tampons. Like other period products, tampons are frequently taxed as luxury goods, even though millions of menstruating women consider tampons to be necessities.

Pink Tax Laws

More than twenty states have passed laws dealing with the pink tax. For example, three years ago, New York eliminated the pink tax on certain goods and services. Ohio also eliminated the pink tax back in 2020.

California eliminated the pink tax with services more than a decade ago, and a 2023 state retail law that took effect in January, bans gender-based price discrimination on products. The pink tax ban prohibits California businesses from pricing similar products higher merely because those products are marketed to women.

Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and Nebraska also recently either eliminated sales tax on feminine hygiene products or reduced state sales taxes on those products.

There is no federal pink tax ban, however. The Pink Tax Repeal Act has been introduced in Congress more than once. But the legislation has not gained enough votes to move through the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

What did CVS do with the Pink Tax? Recently, CVS pharmacies took steps to help eliminate the pink tax. The pharmacy chain lowered prices on its branded feminine care products. CVS also eliminated sales tax on those products in twelve states where the products were more expensive because of the pink tax.

How Much Does the Pink Tax Cost Women?

Studies show that gender price discrimination can cost women in practical, physical, and financial ways. Data from the Economic Policy Institute show that women still make about twenty percent less on the dollar than men. Similar numbers from various studies show that women are likely to spend more for necessities like healthcare, clothing, and housing as compared to similarly situated men.

A New York pink tax study found that women's products are on average, 13% more expensive than similar men's products. As a result, when products that are essential for women (like feminine hygiene products being taxed as luxury items), that can have a significant financial impact.

High and rising costs of period products has also led to an epidemic of "period poverty"- where an estimated one in four women and girls cannot afford menstrual products. Period poverty affects millions of women and studies show that struggling to pay for menstrual products, or not having those products, can damage social, emotional, and menstrual health.

In terms of monetary costs, when California passed its pink tax ban, the state estimated that women paid more than $2,300 for goods and services marketed to them at higher prices than similar goods and services marketed to men. (That comes to about $188,000 over a woman's lifetime and about $47 billion for all of the women in California). Other data show that women can pay more than $1,300 more per year because of the pink tax.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pink Tax: What Does Price Discrimination Cost Women?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now is a good time to look at the "pink tax"-gender price discrimination that's banned in many states but costs women millions of dollars each year.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows the latest statistics and updates on the "Pink Tax".

Here are a few I thought were important:

Certain U.S. areas have banned the "pink tax," which is gender-based price discrimination. These laws aim to ensure fair pricing for similar products marketed to different genders.

Although there are no actual federal laws addressing this issue.

Price disparities vary widely, and tariffs may play a role.

Services like dry cleaning may also charge more for women.

Marginalized groups are disproportionately affected. Consumers in these areas can report discrimination to local authorities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thomas Barwick/Getty Images

If you've ever seen the same brand of shampoo that's priced several dollars more for women than for men, you may have seen the "pink tax" in action.

The pink tax, or gender-specific pricing on women's goods, contributes to the disproportionate financial burden that U.S. women face at a time when inflation is hiking up prices for many goods.

This financial burden also has disproportionate mental health effects, as 46 percent of women report that money negatively impacts their mental health, compared to 38 percent of men, according to a 2022 Bankrate poll.

This is how the pink tax and other financial burdens affect women across the U.S.

Key pink tax insights

What is the pink tax?

The pink tax isn't an actual government tax; it refers to discriminatory pricing that inflates the cost of goods marketed to women. It can also apply to the practice of inflating costs for women seeking services.

The term "pink tax" was popularized around the mid-1990s, when the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 passed in California, prohibiting price discrimination on services.

The pink tax inflates the price of goods found on retail shelves, and small price differences can add up to women paying more than men over time. The California Senate Committee on Judiciary and Senate Select Committee on Women, Work & Families stated in 2020 that Californian women pay an average of about $2,381 more, for the same goods and services, than men per year. That can add up to about $188,000 in pink tax throughout a woman's life.

The existence and prevalence of the pink tax has been debated in recent years. Many modern discussions of the pink tax reference a 2015 New York City Department of Consumer Affairs study, " From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer," which found that New York City retailers price women's products an average of 7 percent more than similar men's products.

However, a 2021 national study by researchers from the University of Chicago, Booth; Northwestern University, Kellogg; and Cornerstone Research found that women's products were only more expensive than men's in one of six retail categories examined. The study's researchers questioned the need for legislative action against the pink tax.

Discriminatory pricing, when found, can become part of financial inequality that chips away women's purchasing power. Women earn 82 cents for every dollar that a man is paid, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a statistic that worsens for women of color and other disenfranchised women, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Women are also more likely to feel stressed about their finances than men, Bankrate found in June 2022.

Inflated prices impact consumers of all genders as the U.S. economy faces high inflation. Bankrate polling from December 2022 found that most people (74 percent) are saving less due to economic factors such as inflation/rising prices, rising interest rates or changes in income or employment. This is how that breaks down by gender:

Bankrate asked: When it comes to saving for unexpected expenses, would you say that inflation/rising prices are causing you to save less, save more or not having any impact on how you are saving for unexpected expenses?

Percentage of men

Percentage of women

Source: Bankrate

Women are also likely to spend more, in proportion to their salaries, than men do, as the average single woman pays more in housing, healthcare and apparel and services due to cost of living, family size and other factors, according to BLS data. The average single, adult woman earns $39,178 annually and spends $38,838, as of 2021, compared to the average single, adult man's earnings of $49,525 annually and spending of $41,203.

Factors such as pay gaps, as well as unequal spending and saving, all result in stark wealth inequality between women and men: families headed by women have 55 cents in median wealth for every dollar owned by families headed by men, according to 2021 data from the St. Louis Fed.

Latest legal updates on the Pink Tax

Laws in these U.S. areas explicitly outlaw the pink tax and other price discrimination:

New York State, passed in 2020

California, two laws passed in 1995 and 2023

Miami-Dade County, Florida, passed in 1997

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo passed a law banning the pink tax in the state, outlawing retailers, manufacturers and other businesses from charging different prices for two goods that are "substantially similar," but are marketed for different genders. Customers can also receive a written price list from service providers under the law.

California also passed a law in September 2022, which went into effect in January, prohibiting discriminatory pricing. Miami-Dade county in Florida also outlawed charging more for products or services on the basis of gender.

As of February 2023, there have been no federal laws passed against the pink tax. A federal bill, the Pink Tax Repeal Act, has been introduced several times in different iterations since 2016, most recently in 2021, but has never passed.

Pink tax pricing: Gender price differences for goods and services

There's no common percentage difference between products marketed towards women versus men; the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs 2015 study found a wide price difference in similar items, from less than a single percentage difference to as much as 48 percent more for similar items. The study found that women were paying more for many common goods, such as an average of 48 percent more for shampoo and conditioner, 15 percent more for shirts, 13 percent more for girls' helmets and pads, 13 percent more for girls' shirts and 15 percent more for supports and braces, among other price differences.

It's also important to note that different manufacturers package products differently and set different standards of quality, it can be difficult to tell if the pink tax applies to a product you may be buying.

How tariffs influence pricing

The pink tax isn't only impacted by retailer or manufacturer decisions. Tariffs, or taxes imposed on U.S. imports from the federal government, can vary widely depending on the product, though the U.S. tariff is relatively low, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC).

However, women's products are still sometimes tariffed higher than men's. A 2018 USITC study found that the average applied U.S. tariff on women's apparel was 15 percent, compared to the 12 percent tariff applied to men's clothing. The study showed 66 percent of tariffs placed on apparel affected women's apparel, specifically, and it estimated that women's apparel faces $2.77 billion more in tariffs than men's. Because tariffs are a flat rate, low-income households disproportionally pay more in tariffs compared to their income than high-income households do.

Service costs for men vs. women

Women looking for services like dry cleaning and grooming may face higher prices, just like they might see with products on the shelf.

In 2016, CBS conducted an experiment in New York City, with a female and male producer asking for dry cleaning for a very similar, cotton shirt. CBS found the female producer was charged at least twice as much for the service as her male counterpart.

Services, however, are more difficult to quantify, as not all businesses charge people of different genders differently, and some services targeted to women, such as haircuts, may be more labor-intensive than men's services.

The pink tax and its impact on marginalized groups

Though the pink tax affects anyone purchasing products marketed to women, gender and racial pay gaps mean women of color already walk into a store with less purchasing power than white women. As of 2021, Black women overall earn 63 cents for every dollar a white man earns, while Hispanic women earn 58 cents for every dollar a white man earns, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Additionally, Black households have a significantly lower median wealth ($24,100, as of 2019) than white households ($189,100, as of 2019), according to the Center for American Progress. They are also more likely to have federal student loans and are more likely to work in lower-paying service jobs, according to the American Association of University Women.

Disabled women earn 67 cents for every dollar a disabled man earns, according to the National Women's Law Center, while elderly women take home a lower average Social Security benefit as a result of lower lifetime earnings, about $18,049 per year as of 2021, compared to the men's average of $22,339.

This sometimes means elderly and disabled women can have a more difficult time affording products affected by the pink tax. Canes were 12 percent more expensive when marketed to women rather than men, the 2015 New York City Department of Consumer Affairs study report found, as were compression socks (4 percent more), adult diapers (2 percent more) and digestive health products (5 percent more).

What to do if you spot price discrimination

If you are in California, New York City or Miami-Dade county, you can report price discrimination to the local government.

If you're located in New York State, you can report price discrimination with the Division of Consumer Protection or with the state attorney general.

In Miami-Dade, you can submit a consumer complaint by email, mail or fax to the county, or by calling the Mediation Center at 786-469-2333.

In California, you can submit a consumer complaint based on the industry to the attorney general.

Bankrate.com commissioned YouGov Plc to conduct the survey on financial wellness. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. The total sample size was 2,457 U.S. adults, including 1,045 who said money has a negative impact on their mental health. Fieldwork was undertaken between April 6 and 8, 2022. The survey was carried out online and meets rigorous quality standards. It employed a nonprobability-based sample using quotas upfront during collection and then a weighting scheme on the back end designed and proven to provide nationally representative results.

Bankrate.com commissioned YouGov Plc to conduct the survey on inflation and pay raises. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. The total sample size was 2,458 U.S. adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between August 17-19, 2022. The survey was carried out online and meets rigorous quality standards. It employed a nonprobability-based sample using quotas upfront during collection and then a weighting scheme on the back end designed and proven to provide nationally representative results.

The study on emergency savings was conducted for Bankrate by SSRS on its Opinion Panel Omnibus platform. The SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus is a national, twice-per-month, probability-based survey. Interviews were conducted from Dec. 16-19, 2022 among a sample of 1,028 respondents in English (1,003) and Spanish (25). The survey was conducted via web (998) and telephone (30). The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. All SSRS Omnibus data are weighted to represent the target population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pink Tax: Latest Updates and Statistics | Bankrate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you've ever seen the same brand of shampoo that's priced several dollars more for women than for men, you may have seen the "pink tax" in action. The pink tax, or gender-specific pricing on women's goods, contributes to the disproportionate financial burden that U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
A consumer report by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs highlighted the "pink tax," revealing that women's products are often priced 7% higher on average than similar men's products. This article raised questions about consumer choice and the influence of marketing. Media outlets portrayed the issue as one of gender discrimination, with some officials calling for legislative action to address the "pink tax."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: European Wax Center Continues to Call out the Absurdity of the Pink Tax: By the Age of 30, the Average Woman Is Charged over $40,000 Because of the Pink Tax

This article found that the average woman is charged an extra $1,351 every year for the same products a man would buy, which totals over 40,000 dollars by the time the woman hits thirty. That is 40,000 dollars more a thirty-year-old woman will never get to invest, spend, donate, or save than that of a man. Women pay noticeably more for necessities like clothing, children's toys, personal hygiene products, and even dry cleaning services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives. It is called the Pink Tax Repeal Act. It was made "To prohibit the pricing of consumer products and services that are substantially similar if such products or services are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whose use the products are intended or marketed or for whom the services are performed or offered.". This bill has yet to be passed. Although a similar bill (the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995) was passed in 1995 in only California.

# data[].attributes.body
A five-minute video of Representative Jackie Speier from California speaking to the House of Representatives about the Pink Tax. She talks about what little is being done about it and how this act should be passed through Congress. She gives us the pros of the bill and why it is important to the woman in our country to be equal on all levels of life, including consumerism.

# data[].attributes.body
A study by Online tax calculator Income Tax UK found that girls' school uniforms are 12 percent more expensive than boys'. They found that girls' uniforms for secondary school are priced at an average of £191.68, over 10 percent higher than boys' uniforms at £170.29. This pricing discrepancy shows the broader issue of gendered pricing, commonly referred to as the "pink tax". Pricing Discrimination does not only occur in everyday stores but also in government school systems.

# data[].attributes.body
Another bill that is similar to the Pink Tax Repeal Act that was also only shown in California in 2022. It looks like California is the only place that cares about woman being priced the same as men! The bill content is as followed: "Existing law prohibits a business establishment from discriminating against a person because of the person’s gender with respect to the price charged for services of similar or like kind. Existing law also requires specified business establishments to disclose in writing the pricing for each standard service, as defined, to display, in a specified manner, a sign stating that it is illegal to base pricing on gender and that a complete price list is available upon request, and to display, in a specified manner, a price list, and to provide the customer with a copy of the complete price list upon request.".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AB1287:v92#DOCUMENT

51.14.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms apply:

(1) "Business" means any business acting within the State of California that sells goods to any individual or entity, including, but not limited to, retailers, suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors.

(2) "Goods" means any consumer products used, bought, or rendered primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

(3) (A) "Substantially similar" means two goods that exhibit all of the following characteristics:

(i) No substantial differences in the materials used in production.

(ii) The intended use is similar.

(iii) The functional design and features are similar.

(iv) The brand is the same or both brands are owned by the same individual or entity.

(B) A difference in coloring among any of the goods shall not be construed as a substantial difference for the purposes of this paragraph.

(b) A person, firm, partnership, company, corporation, or business shall not charge a different price for any two goods that are substantially similar if those goods are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whom the goods are marketed and intended.

(c) This section does not prohibit price differences in goods or services based specifically upon any of the following:

(1) The amount of time it took to manufacture those goods.

(2) The difficulty in manufacturing those goods.

(3) The cost incurred in manufacturing those goods.

(4) The labor used in manufacturing those goods.

(5) The materials used in manufacturing those goods.

(6) Any other gender-neutral reason for charging a different price for those goods.

(d) (1)   Notwithstanding any other law, whenever the Attorney General has cause to believe that a violation of this section has occurred, the Attorney General may, upon notice to the defendant of not less than five days, seek a court order to enjoin and restrain the continuance of those violations.

(2) If a court finds that the defendant has violated this section, an injunction may be issued by the court enjoining or restraining any violation, without requiring proof that any person has, in fact, been injured or damaged thereby. The court may make direct restitution, if applicable. In connection with the proposed application for an injunction, the Attorney General is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules.

(3) If a court finds that the defendant has violated this section, a court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the first violation, and a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each subsequent violation. The total civil penalty imposed pursuant to this paragraph shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), a court may impose additional civil penalties upon a defendant exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) if the defendant subsequently violates this section with respect to the same goods for which the maximum civil penalty has been previously imposed under a separate civil action or for any good for which the Attorney General has not brought civil action pursuant to this section.

(e) For the purposes of this section, each instance of charging a different price for two goods that are substantially similar, as specified in subdivision (b), shall constitute a single violation.

(f) This section does not limit liability under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Section 51).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AB1287:v92#DOCUMENT 51.14. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms apply: (1) "Business" means any business acting within the State of California that sells goods to any individual or entity, including, but not limited to, retailers, suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors.