Carton 1

Richious Carton

Jessica Graue

ENG 1201

17 March 2019

Bibliography

Curtiss, Katherine. “Obama Takes on the Tampon Tax.” Global Citizen, Global Poverty Project,

19 Jan. 2016, www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/obama-speaks-out-about-the-tampon-

tax/. Accessed on 2 March 2019.

The name of the source is “Obama takes on the tampon”, found on Global Citizen as of January

19, 2016. It was published by Katherine Curtiss to speak on the tampon tax and its flaws

in America and other countries. Tampons are a products that half the population uses for

over a course of 30-50 years. States impose sales tax on tampons by viewing them as

luxury items. In many states and countries, the tax is coming to an end. Obama suggests

that the tax exists due to men ruling the government and making implementing the laws.

Australia, the US, UK, and Slovakia are examples of places that tax women for tampons

and other feminine products. Action needs to be taken so that the tax is removed from

every country and states. Women have to endure this disenfranchise for a product they

need.

The purpose of the author writing this is to inform the audience of the tax, where it is in effect,

how much the tax adds on, and what did the former president think of the tax. The

intended audience is anyone curious about what the tampon tax is and why it should be

removed. I would say the age range for the audience is 13 and older. The article

encourages people to get involved in the tampon tax so that more states and countries
 Carton 2

remove it.

The author is a Digital Content intern for Global Citizen. Her credibility proves to be reliable as

she is a graduate from Harvard’s School of Education and Agnes Scott College. She has

multiple articles on topics that are of importance. The author has adequate information to

write this piece by gathering her information from other sources. She gives statistics and

cites where she got them from. The source itself is credible because they are a movement

committed to making change. The source provided credible authors who post information

on their site.

I will use this site in my research paper to support why the government needs to remove the tax

from everywhere. While states have the control over implementing this tax, the

government needs to step in to just remove it all completely. I will use this site to also

breakdown the tax in other places than the US.

Greenwood, Arin. “Legislators See Bias in Taxes on Feminine Hygiene Products.” ABA Journal,

June 2016, p. 16. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=115643477&sit

e=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed on 1 March 2019.

The article is titled “Legislators See Bias in Taxes on Feminine Hygiene Products” and written

by Arin Greenwood. It is published by ABA journal as of June 2016. Long story short

women are being taxed for being women. A woman will spend $3,000 on tampons,

sanitary pads and other period-related items over the course of her life. Taxing tampons

and menstrual pads gender-biased injustice and irrational. New York is heading toward

removing their tax on tampons by a bill or by lawsuit. Multiple states argue that this

exemption would cut into state revenues without providing them benefit. Scrapping sales
 Carton 3

taxes on tampons would benefit both poor women and billionaires.

The purpose of the article is to inform people of the tax in states. It mentions how much women

spend during their lifetime and that they are basically being taxed in regards to their

gender. The intended audience is for older people. It talks about current activities that

older people would understand better than younger kids.

The author does not have much credibility but she provides sources for where she gets her

information from. She provides in text citations for the statistics she includes. The source

itself is a place to get scholarly information from.

I will use this source the mention how the tax unfairly targets women. Women endure something

that they cannot control and are basically being punished for it. In a sense, it is sexist

because men do not endure the same tax.

Irvine, Jessica. “Why You Should Keep Paying the 'Tampon Tax'.” The Sydney Morning Herald,

The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 June 2018, www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-you-

should-keep-paying-the-tampon-tax-20180618-p4zm81.html. Accessed on 2 March 2019.

The article titled “Why You Should Keep Paying the ‘Tampon Tax’” is written by Irvine Jessica.

It is also published on The Sydney Morning Herald as of June 19,2018. Male politicians

have stopped trying to argue in favour of putting women through act of their feminine

produces being taxed. Due to the protest of feminists, Coalition lower house MPs are

expected to vote down a Greens-initiated bill to exclude sanitary items from the GST. The

concern of taxing feminine products comes from the idea of low income women and how

they will get access to these products. Wealthy women benefit the most from tax

exemptions. An alternative approach to this issue would be to put tampons and other

hygiene products in schools and business for no added cost.

 Carton 4

The purpose of this article is to state why the tampon tax should be paid for, but it also provides

information on why it shouldn’t. The intended audience isn’t specified towards a certain

group, but I would say the age ranges from 13 and older. The article gives an insight for

the readers to read the article through two different viewpoints as I did.

The author is credible because she is a senior economics writer for The Sydney Morning Herald.

She also has other articles through this publisher. She provides adequate information

regarding the topic and cites her research and quotes. The source itself is credible because

they are a reliable source in regards to the information they put out.

I will use this source to support my argument as to why the tampon tax is wrong. The quotes

about low income women suffering from the tax will be useful in my argument.

Kaeding, Nicole. “Tampon Taxes: Do Feminine Hygiene Products Deserve a Sales Tax

Exemption?” Tax Foundation, Tax Foundation, 18 June 2018,

https://taxfoundation.org/tampon-taxes-sales-tax. Accessed on 2 March 2019.

The article titled “Tampon Taxes: Do Feminine Hygiene Products Deserve a Sales Tax

Exemption?” is written by Nicole Kaeding. It is published on the Tax Foundation as of

June 18, 2018. At least 13 states and the District of Columbia considered exempting

feminine hygiene products from the state sales tax. Only 4 states did so in 2016. By

removing the tax on feminine hygiene products, there is a shrink of the state sales tax

bases. Supporters of removing the tampon tax argue that women face an injustice when

buying these products. Exempting feminine hygiene products from the sales tax base

caused states to receive less revenue. California considered removing feminine hygiene

products from its sales tax base. Because they would lose $20 million in state and local

revenue from this one change, they turned down the bill. Advocates are still trying to
 Carton 5

push states to remove feminine hygiene products from their state sales tax bases because

they are considering sales taxation a “tampon tax.”

The purpose of this article is to break down all the taxes on tampons within the states of

America. It includes a table of how much the tax in is certain states and which states are

working to remove the tax. The intended audience for people 13 and older; general public

who understands taxes.

The author is credible because she is a Vice President of Federal and Special Projects at the Tax

Foundation. Her information has been featured in the New York Times and other

publications. She also sites all of her information and provides a ton of statistics. The

source itself is credible because it speaks of tax issues and the status of taxes in certain

states and countries to promote awareness.

I will use this source to breakdown which states tax the most and how it affects women.

Charging so much for a product necessary for women plays an effect of their economic

standing. I will also breakdown why certain states do not what to remove the tax: because

they will lose a ton of revenue.

Okamoto, Nadya. Period Power: a Manifesto for the Menstrual Movement. Simon & Schuster

Books for Young Readers, 2018. Accessed on 1 March 2019.

The book is titled Period Power: a Manifesto for the Menstrual Movement by Nadya Okamoto.

It is published by Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers as of March 1, 2019.

Periods are embarrassing for women and not spoken of because of the taboo stigma. They

are also gross to talk about to others who don’t have to deal with them. People who aren’t

informed about periods have a misunderstanding of them. Established by the decision

making tabled, the tampon tax discriminates against women by men who do not have to
 Carton 6

go through periods.

The purpose of the book is to inform people about why men and higher officials would

implement the tampon tax. Because they are not taught or because they simply don’t

understand how periods affect women, they tax women. The audience ranges from young

adults to older adults. It is important for the younger generation to be informed of issues

going on about gender inequality.

The author is the PERIOD founder and attended Harvard College. She started the foundation at

16 and has achieved multiple accomplishments. The credibility of the source is a book

company for young readers. They published book for amazon and multiple other

sponsors.

I will use this book to support my claim about why men implement this tax. I will also reference

the book to provide information about the discrimination of women and the gender

difference between men and women.

Recht, Hannah. “What Life Would Look Like Without the ‘Tampon Tax.’” Bloomberg.com,

Bloomberg, 30 Oct. 2018, www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tampon-cost/. Accessed

on 2 March 2019.

The article is titled “What Life Would Look Like Without the ‘Tampon Tax’” and written by

Hannah Recht. It is published by Bloomberg as of October 30, 2018. Period supplies for

majority of Americans are taxed twice. Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Savings

Accounts, can save people up to 40 percent on over-the-counter medical purchases. The

Internal Revenue Service doesn’t want to classify tampons and pads as medical expenses.

If taxes were not implemented on tampons/products, the FSA would save someone so

much more money for more products. The law doesn’t allow menstrual products to be
 Carton 7

purchased with through FSA. Congress seemed against addressing the use of FSA for

menstrual products. The House passed a bill that would add menstrual products to the list

of FSA but the Senate has not yet considered the bill. Low income women have few

affordable options for dealing with their periods. Tampons and pads can’t be purchased

through government assistance programs. Tax changes would lower the cost of these

products but a larger reform through the government is needed.

The purpose of the article is to address options for dealing with the tampon tax and how like

would benefit is it was removed. The intended audience is for an older audience because

they can better comprehend what is being mentioned in the article and why government

assistance programs is needed.

The author cannot be identified as a credible author because she doesn’t have a credential

background. But I can say that the information provided is credible because it is cited

where the information came from. Bloomberg is software company that provides

business and marketing news. In relation to the tampon tax, it provides news on the

tampon tax and how it economically effects the nation.

I will use this article to give information on why changes to the tampon tax is necessary. The

tampon tax can be changed through government involvement rather than left to the states

hands. Insurance policies is a way to elevate women of this tampon tax burden.

Sweeney, Lucy. “'Unfair' Tampon Tax to Be Scrapped after 18 Years of GST on Period

Products.” ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 3 Oct. 2018,

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-03/tampon-tax-to-go-states-and-territories-agree-to-

remove-gst/10332490. Accessed on 2 March 2019.

This article is titled “Unfair' Tampon Tax to Be Scrapped after 18 Years of GST on Period
 Carton 8

Products” and written by Lucy Sweeney. It is published by an Australian Broadcasting

Corporation as of October 3, 2018. After an 18 year campaign, the 10% tax on tampons

and pads will be removed after states and territories agreed to make sanitary products

exempted from the GST. The GST on sanitary items has been described as unfair because

commons and viagra are exempted. The move will cost $30 million a year for states. It is

said that it will take a few months for the Federal Government to consult with states and

territories as well as the public about which products go under feminine hygiene for the

GST change. This change isn’t about money, but about equality for women. The tax is

indeed a sexist tab. This reform is overdue and good for the women in Australia.

The purpose of this article is to speak on the change in Australia. It mentions how it has taken

years for this reform to take place and not that is has, it is one step close to equality for

women. The audience the author is writing to is for older individuals. It speaks on an

issue meant for older individuals to understand the tax change in another country on a

sexist tax.

There is no background information on the author so her credibility is not strong. She includes

sources to where her information came from, which ensure her information isn’t made up

in her mind. The source itself is from ABC News and their site includes a bunch of news

stories.

I plan on using this source to compare it to Americans progress in removing the tampon tax.

Australia does not have states which is why the government of the United States need to

step in so that it is removed from America as a whole.

 Carton 9

In the United States, some state governments have made the decision to ratify on the

Tampon Tax Bill while other states choose to still tax feminine products. States tax feminine

products because they are viewed as luxury items rather than necessities. Women around the

world need feminine products because without them, they would face unhygienic issues and

embarrassment. Similar to deodorant, which is seen as a necessity, without it the population

would face unhygienic issues and embarrassment. So why is it that tampons are taxed but

deodorant is not when they face similar outcomes? Women go through their period roughly every

28 days and during that time, the feminine products they need are taxed. Periods are far from

luxurious and should not be taxed that way. States fail to realize that women do not enjoy being

on their periods and instead decide to tax them for it, which is why the federal government must

step in.