The Pink Tax

Women and men have similar needs when it comes to hygiene, including items such as razors, deodorants, toothbrushes, etc. Recently, the removal of something called the Pink Tax has been gaining a tremendous amount of support in the last few years. The Pink Tax is an increased price on women’s hygienic items that seem incredibly similar to men’s hygienic items. The most compared item is a pack of razors that are essentially the same thing in the men’s and women’s section of the respective aisle. Throughout the history of marketing, men and women have been targeted through the use of certain colors and patterns, but drug stores seem to be putting that marketing to a new extreme and only increasing the price of women’s products. One woman

Their main premise is to just being attention to the public that there is a movement going on to get rid of this “tax”. Although, the last line of the article does point fingers at women for complaining about this tax. The New York Times says, “In the absence of legislative relief, women might want to consider shopping in the men’s aisle” (Editorial Board). This quote is saying that since there is no legislation to back up women in their fight, they just need to go purchase the equivalent men’s items. That is not the point of the movement itself. The movement is trying to take away the unnecessary tax from women’s products to make it even with the men’s products. Buying from the men’s aisle will just be ignoring the problem altogether when there needs to be something done about the unfair taxation of women. The author is also explaining that legislation is the one of few ways to expedite the problem, but there does not need to be such an extent brought into the

The article, written by Tim Worstall, explains that the New York Times was very wrong, but at the same time, in his opinion, very correct. In fact, the title of the article is, “The Pink Tax is Nothing To Do With Public Policy, Women Can Solve It For Themselves” (Worstall). The title itself insinuates that women are to blame for the increased price in products, and not the target marketing drugstores are trying to pull off. Worstall also states that the tax will not go away unless women stop buying their products and switching to the male equivalent. He backs up this statement by bringing up the fact that drugstores simply change the price because they can and they will. “…Why are the stores offering this different pricing? The obvious first answer is because they can” (Worstall). He, like the New York Times, is missing the point of the movement did, and that is changing the way drugstores tax and without exploiting women to more annual spending. Women should not have to spend an extra amount of money for something as menial as a color or design. I do agree with Worstall when he says that legislation does not need to be involved, but for a reason different than him. He believes that it is inherent that women and men buy their respective colors, which might be due to marketing strategies, despite what the law would state. I believe there