Talk:Tampon tax

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sc157762.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AilinKim, AnnChen17, ChristopherOng, Ereca. Peer reviewers: RxHugo, Jonthanq, DeniseL20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FourthDegreeWorkerBee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mma011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal - discuss at the other talk page

There's a (to my mind very sensible) proposal to merge this article with another one, Tax on feminine hygiene products, created at virtually the same time (ie in last couple of days). The discussion has already started at Talk:Tax_on_feminine_hygiene_products#Propose_merge. Please discuss there, not here, to keep it in one place. PamD 09:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

United States section

I quote: "California Assembly member Cristina Garcia reported that California women each pay roughly $7 per month ... in taxes" Assembly member Garcia may well have stated this, but this seems to be a ludicrous number. CA sales tax is 7.25%, suggesting that the average woman spends $100 per month on sanitary products. I find that a typical box of 10 tampons cost around $4 and a package of 20 sanitary napkins cost around $5. Does any woman use 250 tampons or 500 sanitary napkins in a single menstrual cycle? It behooves Wikipedia to include realistic numbers to show that Garcia's numbers are pure fantasy. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I would like a to a new section that talks about both views, the proponent and the opponent toward the tampon tax. This would be beneficial as there many different opinions about the topic since its rise to the public and lawmaker's eyes. To include this article focus too much to towards on side.Sc157762 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

We would like to expand on this article by adding on the following topics: 1. Tampon Tax in India 2. Elaboration on New Jersey’s 2005 tax break 3. Elaboration on why AB -1561 was repealed and how Cristina Garcia responded 4. CA ASSEMBLY BILL 10 5. How the tax affects low-income women on federal assistance program Ereca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable source?

Where does the information come from? Most of the facts are cited properly with references that are freely available to view for verification. I believe that several facts may still require citation. For example, the last sentence in the intro (India eliminating GST) and Scotland section (believed to be first country in the world..., the WHO/UNICEF study). DeniseL20 (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The section on SNAP and WIC can use a citation. I mention this as it may lead you to more information on CA's status with this tax. Also, this part can be expanded to include some examples of medical devices that are covered by SNAP and/or WIC and how this was covered, if at all, in CA-AB-10. RxHugo (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources include peer-reviewed journals, official legislature, and local as well as national news. There were a few sources that came from local or regional news, it would be best to replace these with more reliable sources, especially in cases where it referred to official legislature passing - maybe cite the source as the legislature itself? All sites were free to access except for the study “Who Benefits from Repealing Tampon Taxes? Empirical Evidence from New Jersey” that was cited in the section on New Jersey’s 2005 tax break, which needed an institutional login to gain access. Latallah1212 (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?

"In 2017 California State legislature passed..." The info from this paragraph is too close to the wording used in the article. Please rephrase. Also, remove the citation from within the sentence. The last sentence should also have a citation. "The IRS does not..." this sentence also seems too similar to the one found in the article. -Jonthanq (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

The specific edits submitted by the group members appears to be fact-based and neutral. However, I believe that this article is skewed heavily towards the proponents for removal of the tampon tax. The introduction includes arguments from the proponents against tampon tax but does not include the opposition's arguments. To achieve a more neutral point of view, I suggest that the introduction should be modified to include both sides of the argument. For the 'United States' section, I also suggest including statistics or quotes pertaining to the opposition's point of view. Jennyzhou4 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Although informative, I also agree that the edits made do tend to have a favoritism towards the removal of the tampon tax. Also, regarding the 12% tax in India in the "Tax law by jurisdiction" section, I would recommend eliminating the phrase "controversial" as that particular word deviates from a neutral stance. Furthermore, the phrase "necessary feminine" could be just phrased without "necessary" in order to achieve a more neutral stance. Overall, great work and continue striving towards maintaining a neutral stance when making revisions to a public domain. Kevinsamiam (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? If not, specify....

The edits made by the group were very well-written. I felt that expanding more on the bills that are relevant to the tampon tax illustrate the political charge behind this topic. The stylist choices of the edits are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style as they are written well and easy to understand.

I feel that perhaps reordering the progression of the United States section would be helpful. It doesn't seem to follow any logical order as far as I can tell. It could also be helpful to section by states because each state's policy is different. There's no order to it and it's hard to follow Katertotz (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify….

Regarding the New Jersey’s 2005 tax break entry, the phrase “prices for consumers decreased by more than the amount of tax” is too similar to “decreased prices for low-income consumers by more than the size of the tax.” Also, the rest of that sentence resembles too closely to the sentence “The results suggest that repealing tampon taxes removes an unequal tax burden and could make menstrual hygiene products more accessible for low-income consumers.”

The sentence “the IRS does not give female products the same distinction thus blocks women from using pre-tax dollars in both flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts” is too similar to “the IRS has not yet acknowledged the same classification; this prevents women from using pre-tax dollars in health savings accounts or flexible spending accounts to purchase the products.” Nhituta (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)nhituta

Toilet paper

The activism section states: "Things that are considered necessities, for example toilet paper, are not taxed." Which country is this about? According to a 2016 source, only two US states, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, exempt toilet paper. https://www.avalara.com/us/en/blog/2016/09/putting-the-tp-in-tax-pain-wacky-tax-wednesday.html . So there are more states exempting tampons than states exempting toilet paper. Prevalence 22:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As another example, you can see that toilet paper gets the standard rate of VAT in Ireland: https://www.revenue.ie/en/vat/vat-rates/search-vat-rates/T/toilet-rolls.aspx - I think the claim that toilet paper is generally not taxed is probably wrong. 94.175.63.31 (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

States attempting to end their tampon taxes with legislation and it being denied

This article only talks about states and countries that have successfully eliminated/reduced the tampon tax in depth. In order to get a full comprehension of the tax and legislation/attempts to end it, the page should also feature information about places that have tried to end the tax and have been denied. I would like to add this to the page.

Edit: There is a list of sources on my sandbox if you would like to see the kind of content I want to add. FourthDegreeWorkerBee (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Dubious numbers

In the section on Canada:

According to Canadian Menstruators, approximately 17,876,392 Canadian people who menstruate between the ages of 12 and 49 spent about $519,976,963.00 on menstrual hygiene products in 2014.

This figure is taken from the source, but it seems excessive. According to Population of Canada the census counted the total population at 35,151,728. 17,876,392 is 50.8% of that, which sounds about right for all women, but that would include girls under 12 and women 50 and over. The true figure of people who menstruate - understanding that there are probably no reliable statistics for this, so age is used as a proxy to exclude prepubescent girls and menopausal women - must surely be much lower. Hairy Dude (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude I agree with you. Those numbers are silly (far too many siginificant digits in such a large number) and not a reliable source - just a blog post. I have removed that sentence now. EMsmile (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Map update

The map shows the status of the tampon tax by state as of 2021. In these two years, more states have eliminated it (i.e.; Colorado, Maine, Louisiana). Is there any chance this map can be updated to 2023? 2001:56A:7A26:7700:DD86:7BD0:2FFC:D256 (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 20 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morganschriner (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Aksgpp3131 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Can this article be merged with Pink tax? DotCoder (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)