Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Stay classy. Oh wait, that would mean you had to be in the first place...
    wow, you want to start an argument so bad
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by OU Student)
    I seem to remember (and maybe it's what you're thinking of?) that men's razors are cheaper than women's.
    probably so :dontknow:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    I seem to remember (and maybe it's what you're thinking of?) that men's razors are cheaper than women's.
    You might be right. A quick look at men vs women Wilkinson sword disposable razors puts womens at 4.20, and mens at 4.00.

    Although its not easy to compare things like this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nolofinwë)

    I don't believe the highwayman (or mugger, as used here) analogy is apt, either here or more generally (and I'm assuming you've read Hart to raise it, and hence know why). In this specific application of the analogy, because Parliament retains legal sovereignty, it is always open to the 'victim' (here, Britain) to decline the highwayman's (EU's) commands and successfully fend him off.
    No I have not read Hart, or anyone else on the subject, I just read the newspapers and try to keep up with things.

    The analogy was my own, thought up a few minutes ago. In fact I am actually rather pleased that you would think I had copied it from some eminent authority (even if only then to be dismissed). Seriously cool.

    Keeping with the highwaymen analogy (I like it better than my version , more colourful!) I would say this:

    The EU **** Turpin will make many threats, and wave his flintlock pistol in our faces. If we don't hand over our money we will be isolated, bankrupt, with no standing in the world. Millions of jobs will be lost!

    It is for us to decline his commands, to vote to leave and fend him off. Then we will have our sovereignty back.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    wow, you want to start an argument so bad
    Not start. Finish.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    Care to prove that statement?

    Also was referring to the article writer



    As discussed in this thread, MANY items are taxed that could be considered essential such as toothpaste, tampons are in fact at a reduced rate of 5% that would mean the articles £3.15 per box would reduce to around £3 and over a lifetime that adds up to around £82 that's around £1 a year, it's such a small issue I don't even know why it comes up.
    It's not really the price itself, we can all agree that the tax is small. I guess the outrage came from labelling sanitary products as a 'luxury'

    People also talk about poverty ridden countries and how they don't have sanitary products. I understand the point, but in our society, they are essential. In our society, they are a necessity. In our society, they are not a luxury. In our society, they are needed for hygiene purposes and to allow us the ability to complete everyday tasks and not have our daily routines disrupted. For a working woman with a demanding job, it would be unnacceptable to simply have a bit of cloth between her legs that will most likely start to smell and become soaked in no time. What if she's on her commute to work? Once she gets up, there will be a huge leakage left on the seat and her clothes. When she arrives at work, she'll have to check every half hour to make sure she's not leaked. Then what will she do if it is soaked and full? how do you suppose she change that? And then stuff the bloodied rag in her bag and take it back home? We cannot operate like that.

    Luxury, really?
    Me: 'just off to buy some tampons'
    Friend: 'wow you're so lucky, I'm jealous'
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Do you agree with the tax on female sanitary items? I think it's absolutely ridiculous. They are essential for us females for at least 30years of our lives so why should we be taxed? I'm sure most girls would agree that we'd much rather not have periods and still be fertile, but that's not our choice. Sanitary towels and tampons are already expensive, they should be lowering the price, not increase the price by adding tax.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-10045629.html
    They are technically a luxury. Apart from food, water and basic shelter, everything else in life is a luxury.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not really the price itself, we can all agree that the tax is small. I guess the outrage came from labelling sanitary products as a 'luxury'

    People also talk about poverty ridden countries and how they don't have sanitary products. I understand the point, but in our society, they are essential. In our society, they are a necessity. In our society, they are not a luxury. In our society, they are needed for hygiene purposes and to allow us the ability to complete everyday tasks and not have our daily routines disrupted. For a working woman with a demanding job, it would be unnacceptable to simply have a bit of cloth between her legs that will most likely start to smell and become soaked in no time. What if she's on her commute to work? Once she gets up, there will be a huge leakage left on the seat and her clothes. When she arrives at work, she'll have to check every half hour to make sure she's not leaked. Then what will she do if it is soaked and full? how do you suppose she change that? And then stuff the bloodied rag in her bag and take it back home? We cannot operate like that.

    Luxury, really?
    Me: 'just off to buy some tampons'
    Friend: 'wow you're so lucky, I'm jealous'

    Well I'm glad you understand my point, but really, they shouldn't be a 'luxury' in any society. If it's not acceptable in 'our' society for a woman to have a bit of cloth between her legs, it certainly shouldn't be acceptable in another society.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I LOVE that this is back on the agenda
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    No I have not read Hart, or anyone else on the subject, I just read the newspapers and try to keep up with things.

    The analogy was my own, thought up a few minutes ago. In fact I am actually rather pleased that you would think I had copied it from some eminent authority (even if only then to be dismissed). Seriously cool.

    Keeping with the highwaymen analogy (I like it better than my version , more colourful!) I would say this:

    The EU **** Turpin will make many threats, and wave his flintlock pistol in our faces. If we don't hand over our money we will be isolated, bankrupt, with no standing in the world. Millions of jobs will be lost!

    It is for us to decline his commands, to vote to leave and fend him off. Then we will have our sovereignty back.
    I think, therefore, we can conclude this very interesting debate on an amiable note. I wouldn't dissent from that opinion. I agree with the prudential reasons you give to the extent that they practically compel political obedience. I'd just add, as ever, that the legal story is quite different. To be honest, I think we've been talking at cross purposes for at least part of the debate.

    And it is a very good example. HLA Hart is probably the most prominent legal philosopher of the 20th Century. He starts his book by discussing the theory of an 19th C philosopher John Austin, who portrayed law as a command-obedience relationship, quite like the highwayman-victim scenario. Hart explains why the analogy is inapt. It's a great read if you ever feel like developing your metaphor further!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nolofinwë)
    I think, therefore, we can conclude this very interesting debate on an amiable note. I wouldn't dissent from that opinion. I agree with the prudential reasons you give to the extent that they practically compel political obedience. I'd just add, as ever, that the legal story is quite different. To be honest, I think we've been talking at cross purposes for at least part of the debate.

    And it is a very good example. HLA Hart is probably the most prominent legal philosopher of the 20th Century. He starts his book by discussing the theory of an 19th C philosopher John Austin, who portrayed law as a command-obedience relationship, quite like the highwayman-victim scenario. Hart explains why the analogy is inapt. It's a great read if you ever feel like developing your metaphor further!
    Nice to finish on an amiable note, and I enjoyed our discussion too.

    I may get round to reading Hart one day, although there is so much to read for interest and pleasure and so little time. Actually, I am about to finish Pepys Diary but then I want to move onto Montaigne's Essays. Pepys is highly recommended if you haven't tackled it yet.

    Wonderful and extraordinary, like stepping back into the mid seventeenth century. It has everything, from the deeply personal (the portrait of a marriage and his numerous affairs) to high politics (his role in the Restoration deftly sidestepping his earlier Cromwellian sympathies) then there is his professional life (he created the modern navy) and his personal witness. He wrote the definitive eye witness accounts of the Fire of London and the Great Plague of course. Marvellous! All with a tremendous zest for life. You start to feel like you know him better than your own friends because there is so much detail and he is SO honest with himself.

    Take care and all the best.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not really the price itself, we can all agree that the tax is small. I guess the outrage came from labelling sanitary products as a 'luxury'

    People also talk about poverty ridden countries and how they don't have sanitary products. I understand the point, but in our society, they are essential. In our society, they are a necessity. In our society, they are not a luxury. In our society, they are needed for hygiene purposes and to allow us the ability to complete everyday tasks and not have our daily routines disrupted. For a working woman with a demanding job, it would be unnacceptable to simply have a bit of cloth between her legs that will most likely start to smell and become soaked in no time. What if she's on her commute to work? Once she gets up, there will be a huge leakage left on the seat and her clothes. When she arrives at work, she'll have to check every half hour to make sure she's not leaked. Then what will she do if it is soaked and full? how do you suppose she change that? And then stuff the bloodied rag in her bag and take it back home? We cannot operate like that.

    Luxury, really?
    Me: 'just off to buy some tampons'
    Friend: 'wow you're so lucky, I'm jealous'
    The reason they are called a luxury is simply because they aren't essential for survival.

    Stop getting tied up in knots over a legal description.

    I think your misunderstanding the difference between SURVIVAL and being uncomfortable.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not really the price itself, we can all agree that the tax is small. I guess the outrage came from labelling sanitary products as a 'luxury'

    People also talk about poverty ridden countries and how they don't have sanitary products. I understand the point, but in our society, they are essential. In our society, they are a necessity. In our society, they are not a luxury. In our society, they are needed for hygiene purposes and to allow us the ability to complete everyday tasks and not have our daily routines disrupted. For a working woman with a demanding job, it would be unnacceptable to simply have a bit of cloth between her legs that will most likely start to smell and become soaked in no time. What if she's on her commute to work? Once she gets up, there will be a huge leakage left on the seat and her clothes. When she arrives at work, she'll have to check every half hour to make sure she's not leaked. Then what will she do if it is soaked and full? how do you suppose she change that? And then stuff the bloodied rag in her bag and take it back home? We cannot operate like that.

    Luxury, really?
    Me: 'just off to buy some tampons'
    Friend: 'wow you're so lucky, I'm jealous'
    I've been in the situation where I've been caught short and had to use tissue as an emergency, which obviously isn't the same. It, as you may know, doesn't stay and there's the increased risk of leakage.

    To me, a luxury is a want and not a need.
    Offline

    3
    I just don't understand why people think it's ok to have sanitary items classified as a 'luxury', yet razors as 'essential'

    Anyone care to explain this to me?
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by OU Student)
    I've been in the situation where I've been caught short and had to use tissue as an emergency, which obviously isn't the same. It, as you may know, doesn't stay and there's the increased risk of leakage.

    To me, a luxury is a want and not a need.
    You can't carry on your everyday life using a tissue instead of a towel, it just doesn't work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MAnnaMM)
    Makes sense, but then how did Jaffa Cakes get the support from all the states?..
    Here's the explanation from the HMRC (VFOOD6260):

    a cake is zero-rated even if it is covered in chocolate, whereas a biscuit is standard-rated if wholly or partly covered in chocolate or some product similar in taste and appearance....

    The leading case on the borderline is that concerning Jaffa cakes: United Biscuits(LON/91/0160). Customs and Excise had accepted since the start of VAT that Jaffa cakes were zero-rated as cakes, but always had misgivings about whether this was correct. Following a review, the department reversed its view of the liability. Jaffa cakes were then ruled to be biscuits partly covered in chocolate and standard-rated: United Biscuits (as McVities, one of the largest manufacturers of Jaffa cakes) appealed against this decision. The Tribunal listed the factors it considered in coming to a decision as follows.

    - The product’s name was a minor consideration.
    - Ingredients:Cake can be made of widely differing ingredients, but Jaffa cakes were made of an egg, flour, and sugar mixture which was aerated on cooking and was the same as a traditional sponge cake. It was a thin batter rather than the thicker dough expected for a biscuit texture.
    - Cake would be expected to be soft and friable; biscuit would be expected to be crisp and able to be snapped. Jaffa cakes had the texture of sponge cake.
    - Size: Jaffa cakes were in size more like biscuits than cakes.
    - Packaging: Jaffa cakes were sold in packages more similar to biscuits than cakes.
    - Marketing: Jaffa cakes were generally displayed for sale with biscuits rather than cakes.
    - On going stale, a Jaffa cake goes hard like a cake rather than soft like a biscuit.
    - Jaffa cakes are presented as a snack, eaten with the fingers, whereas a cake may be more often expected to be eaten with a fork. They also appeal to children, who could eat one in a few mouthfuls rather like a sweet.
    - The sponge part of a Jaffa cake is a substantial part of the product in terms of bulk and texture when eaten.

    Taking all these factors into account, Jaffa cakes had characteristics of both cakes and biscuits, but the tribunal thought they had enough characteristics of cakes to be accepted as such, and they were therefore zero-rated.


    I've helped out on a dispute with the HMRC over the classification of imported products before, and all I can say is that tax lawyers will try to use every minute distinction to attempt to get the said product classified in a lower tax category. This of course can lead to very ridiculous conclusions, but it is still unfair to compare tampons to Jaffa cakes, given the law in this area.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Here's the explanation from the HMRC (VFOOD6260):

    a cake is zero-rated even if it is covered in chocolate, whereas a biscuit is standard-rated if wholly or partly covered in chocolate or some product similar in taste and appearance....

    The leading case on the borderline is that concerning Jaffa cakes: United Biscuits(LON/91/0160). Customs and Excise had accepted since the start of VAT that Jaffa cakes were zero-rated as cakes, but always had misgivings about whether this was correct. Following a review, the department reversed its view of the liability. Jaffa cakes were then ruled to be biscuits partly covered in chocolate and standard-rated: United Biscuits (as McVities, one of the largest manufacturers of Jaffa cakes) appealed against this decision. The Tribunal listed the factors it considered in coming to a decision as follows.

    - The product’s name was a minor consideration.
    - Ingredients:Cake can be made of widely differing ingredients, but Jaffa cakes were made of an egg, flour, and sugar mixture which was aerated on cooking and was the same as a traditional sponge cake. It was a thin batter rather than the thicker dough expected for a biscuit texture.
    - Cake would be expected to be soft and friable; biscuit would be expected to be crisp and able to be snapped. Jaffa cakes had the texture of sponge cake.
    - Size: Jaffa cakes were in size more like biscuits than cakes.
    - Packaging: Jaffa cakes were sold in packages more similar to biscuits than cakes.
    - Marketing: Jaffa cakes were generally displayed for sale with biscuits rather than cakes.
    - On going stale, a Jaffa cake goes hard like a cake rather than soft like a biscuit.
    - Jaffa cakes are presented as a snack, eaten with the fingers, whereas a cake may be more often expected to be eaten with a fork. They also appeal to children, who could eat one in a few mouthfuls rather like a sweet.
    - The sponge part of a Jaffa cake is a substantial part of the product in terms of bulk and texture when eaten.

    Taking all these factors into account, Jaffa cakes had characteristics of both cakes and biscuits, but the tribunal thought they had enough characteristics of cakes to be accepted as such, and they were therefore zero-rated.

    I've helped out on a dispute with the HMRC over the classification of imported products before, and all I can say is that tax lawyers will try to use every minute distinction to attempt to get the said product classified in a lower tax category. This of course can lead to very ridiculous conclusions, but it is still unfair to compare tampons to Jaffa cakes, given the law in this area.
    Yeah, I think I've heard about this before actually, I think on QI weirdly enough.
    I think it's probably unfair to compare food products with sanitary products anyway, I'm just hoping this whole debate over sanitary products will one day lead to some action.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by MAnnaMM)
    Yeah, I think I've heard about this before actually, I think on QI weirdly enough.
    I think it's probably unfair to compare food products with sanitary products anyway, I'm just hoping this whole debate over sanitary products will one day lead to some action.
    It was on QI, whether that's where you heard it or not

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MAnnaMM)
    Yeah, I think I've heard about this before actually, I think on QI weirdly enough.
    I think it's probably unfair to compare food products with sanitary products anyway, I'm just hoping this whole debate over sanitary products will one day lead to some action.
    I don't think the EU is going to bother considering changes to Tampon charges any time soon, considering that their plate is so full already (with the migrant crisis, global tax avoidance regimes, and in a year's time, yet another Greek financial crisis). Nor will the UK parliament have any power in changing the law on their own. The media whipping the public and parliament into a hysteric frenzy is not really going to achieve much.

    So it might be down to those crazy tax lawyers yet again to try to redefine tampons as something else, and they're going to have to be very creative with their arguments to do so. But it is unlikely that tampon retailers would want to litigate the issue in the first place; a 5% VAT and 0% import levy is already extremely low - the VAT on band aids is 20%, on top of a 6.5% import levy - and these companies could stand to lose out more if their tampon litigation does not go according to what is planned.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    I'm not sure if you understand this but, VAT applies to more than just tampons, such as condoms.

    Tampons are not REQUIRED, they are not essential for survival.

    What about toothpaste? is that essential for survival? not you can surivive without toothpaste, hence it is taxed.
    Toilet paper? taxed
    pots and pans? taxed
    Cleaning items? taxed
    Food items? mostly not taxed
    energy? reduced like tampons
    Car seats for babies? reduced like tampons.

    Feminism is running out of things to complain about.
    If all these are true then I agree that this argument is a bit silly.

    There's scope for an argument that toilet paper and toothpaste should be untaxed, but if those things are taxed I don't see why tampons should be singled out as exempt.

    I think part of the problem is that most of us have no idea what tax we're paying on what items, as is evidenced throughout this thread. In the US, for example, retailers list their prices without tax, so everyone is completely clear on how much tax they're paying. I wish we followed that system here.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.