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

Sanitary items as luxuries watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kadak)
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What if she was autistic?:hmmm:
    I love your little comments
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by somemightsay888)
    Lool, all she had to say was this, instead it was like observing an autistic child try and come to terms with Economics 101 :erm:
    :rofl: oh sauron. Wash your mouth out with soap


    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Where is your home village? I know, I remember when I visited my dad's birth place, and there was a near by area I had never seen before and they had one tap of water for everyone to share. The water was all murky as well. I'm sure it would be a luxury for them to have bottles upon bottles of clean water to drink and bathe in, but it's just not the reality. They would see it as a LUXURY, that was my point!
    A small island just off the coast of Nigeria
    This really has to change people shouldn't have to suffer that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon_98)
    So you believe that those who dont wish to feel gross and icky are treating themselves? People need to be clean and hygienic. Hygiene cannot be a luxury bc it is a basic requirement. Yes, some people around the other world may not have access to these things but it does not mean those that do are indulging in life + the like.
    I wasn't talking about those who do, I was talking about those who don't!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I love your little comments


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thanks ,I like to imagine Im a deep thinker.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    A small island just off the coast of Nigeria
    This really has to change people shouldn't have to suffer that.
    It's sad, but here we are complaining about taxing tampons...yes controversial, I know, but we can all more or less afford it.There are just so many more things, important things to openly discuss and change!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    That's just stupidly childish.

    Use a bloody peice of cheap cloth. You don't need these overly comfy and state of the art mass produced versions, just use some cloth.
    first of all that was banter

    secondly, you don't need a highly engineered, mass produced toilet either, just dig a bloody hole in the ground or use a bucket and clean it a million times in between uses

    sure hygiene is an issue but, we must be as primitive and basic as possible
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nolofinwë)
    As I say, I don't want to start a tangent, so I'll just say this. EU law only has effect in member states because the national constitutions of member states permit it to do so. In Britain, we are told that EU law only applies because Parliament accepted that it applies under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. To use an analogy, in 1972, Parliament opened a drawbridge which lets EU law in to mix with national law. Therefore, EU law only applies because Parliament says that it applies. It applies, therefore, through a mechanism which is premised on, rather than an abrogation of, Parliamentary Sovereignty. In principle, Parliament could repeal s2 of the ECA at any time. They could raise the drawbridge. Thereby, EU law would no longer apply. Thus, Parliament remains sovereign to withdraw from EU law at any time.
    True, we could leave the EU, and my position is that we should.

    But until and unless we do, our parliament HAS to implement EU law if it is to remain a member. You are positing a distinction without a difference.



    (Original post by Nolofinwë)

    The only effect which EU law has is to alter national laws so long as EU law continues to have primacy (which, as I've just explained, is always conditional on Parliament choosing to opt out). If it alters an old law, that is not substantively different to Parliament altering an old law: the only difference is procedural, in that the measure, though still implicitly validated by Parliament through s2, comes from a different legislative source. The major difference is that EU law applies over subsequently-created national laws. Therefore, the doctrine of implied repeal no longer operates. That, however, is the extent of the effect of EU law: although it has abrogated the doctrine of implied repeal, Parliament can still do as it wishes, including expressly legislating against an EU law (we have no reason to think that this is prohibited), or leaving the EU entirely. The option rests entirely with Parliament, which is the hallmark of a still-sovereign body.
    This is nonsense. In our parliamentary democracy the people vote for elected representatives to enact legislation. The "demos" is the British electorate.

    And if we are unhappy we can throw them out and elect a new parliament.

    EU legislation is created by an (unelected) Commission, 28 European Heads of Government who make decisions through a QMV system, and a lapdog "parliament" which is unable to intervene and impose its will when the EU's own auditors refuse to sign off the accounts for more than 20 years.
    (Original post by Nolofinwë)
    I'm not sure how the democracy argument is at all related, and it is anyway premised on the assumption that there is no European demos.
    See above. The assumption is correct. If not, where IS the European demos?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    True, we could leave the EU, and my position is that we should.

    But until and unless we do, our parliament HAS to implement EU law if it is to remain a member. You are positing a distinction without a difference.

    I think you need to distinguish the different senses of 'has', i.e. the difference senses of obligation. Politically, they may have to do so. The ECJ may say that they have to do so. However, as a matter of domestic law, which ultimately determines who has sovereignty, there is not, because they are free to expressly legislate against an EU measure whenever they like. Therefore, there is no domestic legal obligation to implement EU law.


    This is nonsense. In our parliamentary democracy the people vote for elected representatives to enact legislation. The "demos" is the British electorate.

    And if we are unhappy we can throw them out and elect a new parliament.

    EU legislation is created by an (unelected) Commission, 28 European Heads of Government who make decisions through a QMV system, and a lapdog "parliament" which is unable to intervene and impose its will when the EU's own auditors refuse to sign off the accounts for more than 20 years.

    In 1972, our elected representatives voted to allow EU law into our system. By comparison, in 1946, our elected representatives voted to ministers to create secondary legislation without needed to pass it through Parliament. Like any other part of our legal order, therefore, the incorporation of EU law stems from the consent of our elected representatives. It is simply another national legislative provision, just one which has fairly unique substance.

    See above. The assumption is correct. If not, where IS the European demos?
    Europe?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by REMLewis)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    A whole new way of looking at Jesus walking across the "Red Sea"..
    just saying...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    :rofl2::rofl3::rofl:
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nolofinwë)
    While I don't know any arguments, I can suggest what the issue might be. The EU works on the basis that items are to be taxed unless they are given a specific exemption. That works well as a general economic policy, as it ensures that states are able to raise taxes widely on goods without having to seek authorisation from the EU with respect to each one. The purpose is to ensure alike treatment in member states as a part of the internal market, hence why it is so difficult to gain an derogation/exception (which the government ruled out as too unlikely to happen a while ago). To gain a specific exemption from tax provisions, one needs to apply to the EU legislator. I haven't looked into the exact means of regulation, but assuming it is the normal one, then for the EU legislator to pass the exemption into law, they need the unanimous agreement of all member states. Assuming that the elected representatives accurately represent the opinions of their people, that means that the majority of the people, and the majority of the government, in each of the 27 member states needs to support the measure. Therefore, if any majority in any of the member states do not consider tampons 'essential' (hence making them a 'luxury', a term that might better be described as 'non-necessary', then the exemption cannot be obtained. An opinion like that could arise for any number of reason, perhaps (and this is one a think is most probable) from something as simple as the national majority in a particular member state preferring other sanitary products to tampons as a cultural norm - therefore, to them, tampons are 'non-necessary', because other products are preferred instead. That is not to say that they would consider sanitary products as a whole 'non-necessary', of course they would consider them essential, but the issue has arisen because we here consider each product in isolation, not under the general category of 'sanitary product'.

    That's just my guess as to why the law is as it is, not my personal opinion as to how it should be. Personally, I'd support any attempt to abolish the tax by gaining an exemption.
    Makes sense, but then how did Jaffa Cakes get the support from all the states?..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MAnnaMM)
    Makes sense, but then how did Jaffa Cakes get the support from all the states?..
    Most food is 0% tax. Brining up Jaffa Cakes is just a way to make it sound absurd.

    Edit: Keep in mind there are plenty of products most would consider absolutely essential, but are taxed at the full rate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nolofinwë)
    Europe?
    Is it your position that the imposition of the tampon tax upon British women (to use the example in this thread) is a product of European Democracy??

    I put it to you that it is a product of "Europe's" lack of democracy.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    I'm not sure if this point has been raised already but there are a variety of essential items which are also taxed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNotReallyMe)
    first of all that was banter

    secondly, you don't need a highly engineered, mass produced toilet either, just dig a bloody hole in the ground or use a bucket and clean it a million times in between uses

    sure hygiene is an issue but, we must be as primitive and basic as possible
    Firstly, your comprehension skills suck.

    I was evidently saying that you should stop moaning so you can have luxury items cheaper, when you could just use cheaper options anyway. You don't hear me moaning about having to pay to flush the toilet do you? Exactly, so I'm going to use it, and pay for my uses as much as necessary. Yet this extremist girl group seem to think that this luxury version of a tissue is a "necessity". Absurd stupidity.

    Secondly, you make yourself look even further childish with your horrendous grammar and failed attempts at being sarcastic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Is it your position that the imposition of the tampon tax upon British women (to use the example in this thread) is a product of European Democracy??

    I put it to you that it is a product of "Europe's" lack of democracy.
    In a circuitous manner of speaking, yes. Not a direct product of a specific vote, but rather an (unfortunate) incidental product of a wide-ranging economic policy of a generally democratically mandated institution and policy. See post 19 (which someone quoted not far above).

    To use a current example as an analogy, in Britain, our democratically elected Parliament implemented the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Recently, a boy was prosecuted under the provision relating to distribution of child pornography for sending a photograph, falling within the definition of pornography, of himself to his girlfriend. Many people felt that this outcome was wrong, and that his actions should not have been criminalised. I'm using this example to demonstrate that a general policy/scheme based on a democratic mandate can still have narrow elements which, when applied in practice, can be undesirable. Those elements can be addressed (as I believe the tax should be addressed), but this does not in any way call into question the democratic source of the general policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Most food is 0% tax. Brining up Jaffa Cakes is just a way to make it sound absurd.

    Edit: Keep in mind there are plenty of products most would consider absolutely essential, but are taxed at the full rate.
    Finally, a comment here which made sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nolofinwë)
    In a circuitous manner of speaking, yes. Not a direct product of a specific vote, but rather an (unfortunate) incidental product of a wide-ranging economic policy of a generally democratically mandated institution and policy. See post 19 (which someone quoted not far above).

    To use a current example as an analogy, in Britain, our democratically elected Parliament implemented the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Recently, a boy was prosecuted under the provision relating to distribution of child pornography for sending a photograph, falling within the definition of pornography, of himself to his girlfriend. Many people felt that this outcome was wrong, and that his actions should not have been criminalised. I'm using this example to demonstrate that a general policy/scheme based on a democratic mandate can still have narrow elements which, when applied in practice, can be undesirable. Those elements can be addressed (as I believe the tax should be addressed), but this does not in any way call into question the democratic source of the general policy.
    I am questioning the democratic sourceof all EU Directives and Regulations, good or bad. My position is that our democratically elected parliament should decide all such matters (as it did for centuries)

    Why do you disagree?

    If we leave the EU we will regain all our sovereignty, and can decide for ourselves whether or not to impose taxes on tampons or anything else.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I am questioning the democratic sourceof all EU Directives and Regulations, good or bad. My position is that our democratically elected parliament should decide all such matters (as it did for centuries)

    Why do you disagree?

    If we leave the EU we will regain all our sovereignty, and can decide for ourselves whether or not to impose taxes on tampons or anything else.
    I've explained all this in my previous posts; see everything I said on how s2 ECA 1972 implements EU law in a manner consistent with Parliamentary Sovereignty, and how the ECA 1972 is a democratically mandated statute. I don't want this to start going in circles.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes it is stupid that they are taxed.

    But so are a lot of thing. Like how are clothes a luxury?
    because beings were meant be naked until Adam and Eve gon' fuc .. it up :hmmm:
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    The tax is stupid

    As if its our fault that we are women and need to reproduce???!!!!

    it's definitely someone's fault for producing the little knuckle head that introduced the god damn tax in the first place
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.