Introduction
The term “Pink Tax” describes the increased costs associated with goods and services targeted at women as opposed to comparable or identical goods offered to males. This phenomena has cultural and economical ramifications and is a type of gender-based price discrimination. The idea of the Pink Tax is examined in this essay, along with its historical context, economic effects, legal issues, and potential remedies.
Gender-based price discrimination is a problem that is frequently disregarded but impacts millions of consumers globally. The phrase “Pink Tax” describes the price difference between goods and services offered to women and those marketed to men, not a formal tax imposed by the government. Women pay more for commonplace goods like apparel, personal care products, and even financial services, according to numerous studies.
Women’s buying choices and the options available to them as regular customers are one way that they experience economic inequality. Marketing ordinary things at a higher price just because they are more feminine and allegedly more appealing to female consumers is known as gender-based marketing, and it is a form of discrimination against women, who already receive lower earnings.
According to a 1994 study of a California bill that was later implemented, “women were paying $1,351 more per year for similar products and services compared to men.” It is obvious that women bear a heavy price for price discrimination and gender-based marketing.
Many businesses assert that the varying production costs of adding colours and new designs for products sold to women are the cause of price differences. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence that aesthetic variations cannot account for all of the huge price disparities between practically identical products. These price differences are more noticeable when it comes to women’s health and cosmetic products like razors. The women’s razor product was 150 percent more expensive than the men’s razor, despite having a nearly identical label and manufacturing process.
History of Pink Tax?
The history of the pink tax traces back several years, but the term itself was coined in 1994 in California. It emerged following the realisation that brands in various cities consistently charged women higher prices for goods and services than men. This marked the formal recognition of a phenomenon that had long been observed— an unfair pricing disparity based on gender.
Pink tax in india
In India, the “pink tax” is not illegal, and the government has no established rules regarding this pricing strategy. Prices for goods and services aimed to women are set by market forces and consumer demand. Although surveys show price differences between products for men and women, there is no study on the pink tax in India.
This disparity in price is not exclusive to India. According to a survey by the New York State Department of Consumer Affairs, products marketed to women were priced 7% higher than those for males or gender-neutral products, with women’s personal care products having a 13% price difference.
Similar pricing disparities were seen in the UK, where women’s facial moisturiser cost 34.28% more than men’s and women’s deodorant was 8.9% more expensive.
Examples of pink tax
According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), goods marketed to women may cost more than comparable goods marketed to males. Products like clothing, shoes, and cosmetics that are marketed and made especially for women are frequently more expensive. For example, pink-packaged products marketed to women could cost more than their gender-neutral counterparts.
This imbalance isn’t limited to pink taxes on goods; it can also apply to services. For example, a woman’s haircut is typically 60% more expensive than a man’s. There are occasionally justifications for this disparity in cost. Consider haircuts as an example. The conventional justification is that since women’s hair tends to be longer, there is more to cut and style. Additionally, women’s hair may require different styling skills, and additional attention is required for hygiene.
The cost of being a women
Pink tax’s effects on women
Women around the world are still heavily burdened financially by the pink tax, mostly because they continue to earn less than males. This financial hardship is particularly noticeable in India, where the gender pay disparity frequently results in women paying less than males despite having to pay larger expenses. Even for equal work, there is a 19% wage gap between men and women in India, according to the Global Gender Gap Report 2022.
Women are disproportionately affected, particularly in industries like agriculture where they perform 80% of the labour. Due to a number of socioeconomic circumstances, this wage disparity still exists in a variety of industries, including IT and agriculture.
Pink Tax, Gender Based Pricing Discrimination
There are many different kinds of taxes in the world, from the most bizarre to the most sensible. In actuality, some people also bring up delicate topics like gender equality, such as the pink tax or the so-called gender tax. In certain nations, the idea of a gender-based tax is still controversial. In reality, the phrase “pink tax” is frequently used to refer to gender-based price discrimination. In a nutshell, the pink tax is the higher price difference that most women have to pay than men when purchasing goods or services.
Why is it pink? because, despite the fact that this isn’t usually the case, it is seen to be the colour that best represents women. According to a United Nations research, women only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by males worldwide. Only five of the 146 nations examined in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2022 have salary equality scores better than 0.80, and 129 of those countries have seen a drop in women’s labour force participation relative to men’s.
According to a 2020 study conducted by the Senate Committees on Judiciary and Women, Work & Families in California, women spend $2,381 more a year on average than men do for the same goods and services. This may add up to over $188,000 in pink tax over the course of a lifetime. Women are more financially vulnerable and have less purchasing power as a result of this combination of increased expenses and lower wages.
Stereotype
In actuality, pink was considered a masculine colour long before “mother of pink” became a fashion statement. According to Tirto.id, colour theory was first presented in 1435 by renowned Italian architect Leon Battista Alberti. He characterised pink as a male colour in his work “De Pictura” (English translation of “On Painting” by
Jhon R. Spencer, 1970). The color’s boldness and harshness are thought to be a reflection of the masculine character. In addition, the pink component is said to complement the brown hue, which also happens to be near the hair colour of the majority of males in the west.
However, in the 18th and 19th centuries, blue was actually seen as a feminine colour. In his book Colour in Western Art: An Issue, Jhon Gauge uses colour to categorise social castes: blue denotes slaves, red denotes a free man, and gold denotes monarchy. Since women made up the bulk of slaves in those days, blue was associated with femininity. Professor Jo B. Paoletti of the University of Maryland in the United States also provided evidence of gender-based colour prejudices, citing the same source, Tirto.id. Paoletti spent thirty years researching the colours of costumes used by children in the United States during the 18th and 19th centuries, using his official website, pinkisforboys.org. According to his book Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls and the Boys in America, the majority of the attire worn by European orphanage children throughout the 18th century was pink. In contrast, men were more likely to wear bright colours like pink, white, and purple in the United States between 1818 and 1882. Discrimination Against Women After the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs released the findings of its study on price differences between men’s and women’s products in 2015, the pink tax, also known as gender-based price discrimination, gained significant attention.
Pink Tax is “Not Tax”
Despite being referred to as the “pink tax,” this gender-based levy is not a literal tax in the true sense of the word. When discussing the pink tax, a common misunderstanding arises, according to taxback.com. The pink tax is seen as a government policy since most people believe it to be a valid tax. The pink tax is actually not a formal punishment for women’s goods. It is the additional price that brands, producers, and retailers charge for goods that are promoted to women.
That does not negate the government’s involvement in enforcing this gender tax, though. Certain products for women, such as sanitary pads, also referred to as tampons tax, are subject to sales tax since they are considered luxury items. Compared to the pink tax, the tampon tax issue is significantly more complex. In many nations, the debate over repealing the tampon tax is more heated than that surrounding the pink tax. At least 32 states in America alone have formally abolished the tampon tax. The existence of the pink tax appears to be seriously harming a sense of justice for gender equality, whether or not it is directly tied to the government.
Price manipulation
It seems that a large number of women are unaware that the pink tax exists. Considering that they never take the time to compare the costs of goods and services for men and women. The industry takes advantage of this issue in order to dare to charge more for women’s goods. The disparity in cost between their items and those of males for identical commodities has been indoctrinated into female shoppers. When a product is marketed as “for men,” it implicitly prevents women from purchasing it. According to them, these goods are “not for me.” In order to hide the pricing disparities, gender-specific products are occasionally kept apart in storage.
Additionally, the industry assumes that women are more willing to spend because they are often less price sensitive. Manufacturers and retailers are well aware that men will either opt to shop elsewhere or save money by not purchasing the goods if they attempt to raise the price of a razor or shampoo. In the meanwhile, women are still prepared to spend more.
In fact, the cost of production and the customer’s willingness to pay are the two factors that define a product’s price. Additionally, businesses occasionally need to invest more money in production when creating products for women. However, these businesses also heavily invest in marketing to make women-oriented products more appealing, oblivious to the fact that women pay more for the same product than men do. Regretfully, they were successful.
What can be done?
In India, the Pink Tax remains a largely unaddressed issue, affecting women across various sectors, from personal care products to healthcare and financial services. One of the most prominent examples is the taxation of sanitary napkins, which were historically considered a luxury item and subjected to the Goods and Services Tax (GST). It was only after widespread protests and advocacy campaigns by activists and organizations that the government removed the 12% GST on sanitary products in 2018. However, the Pink Tax extends beyond hygiene products. Women’s personal care items, such as razors, shampoos, and lotions, often cost more than their male counterparts despite having similar ingredients and manufacturing processes. Additionally, services such as haircuts, dry cleaning, and salon treatments tend to be priced higher for women, reinforcing gender-based pricing discrimination. Financially, women also face disparities in loan interest rates and insurance premiums, making economic participation more expensive. Addressing the Pink Tax in India requires a combination of government intervention, corporate responsibility, and consumer awareness. Implementing stricter policies against gender-based pricing, encouraging gender-neutral branding, and raising awareness among consumers about price differences can help reduce the financial burden on women. While progress has been made, a more structured and widespread effort is necessary to ensure fair pricing and economic equality for all genders in India.
Conclusion
In fact, governments did not formally impose the Pink tax. The larger reality, however, is that despite the negative salary disparity between men and women, businesses have been charging women more for the same things for decades. As a result, men pay less and women pay more. We can eliminate the structural injustices that the pink tax has exacerbated by raising awareness and enacting significant change, opening the door to a more just and inclusive society for coming generations.
Reference
https://muc.co.id/en/article/pink-tax-gender-based-pricing-discrimination
https://cleartax.in/s/pink-tax-in-india
https://now.org/blog/the-pink-tax-the-cost-of-being-a-woman/
https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/pink-tax-how-women-pay-more/#what-is
https://www.mondaq.com/india/dodd-frank-consumer-protection-act/1511668/the-pink-tax-trap-the-challenging-cost-of-being-women-consumer
Author Bio
