Tampon Tax : who should decide

littlegreenfrog_2

michaels wrote: »

Surely the corollary to the free movement of labour should be harmonized income tax rates and benefits? Otherwise one country could give itself a competitive advantage in employment and suck up all the unemployed but motivated from across the continent causing a brain drain that would severekly damage the less successful economies putting a strain on their health services as just one example?

That is a very interesting question.

The economic reasons for why certain things are harmonised and others are not are very complex. I'm doing a masters in EU law and even I struggle to understand it all. It's definitely too complicated to even attempt to explain on here.

The political reasons are a little easier. Broadly, people want an internal market, and it has greatly increased our economic prosperity since its creation (which is why more countries want to be part of it). Obviously this has caused some unintended consequences, and the economic situation in the EU is not looking particularly rosy right now, but viewed in the long term we have mostly become better off for being in.

But there are definite limits to how much integration people want. Even in more pro-EU countries, most people do not want a "United States of Europe". One thing pretty much all the member states agree on is that certain things like income tax and healthcare systems are for individual member states to structure as they see fit. The income tax someone pays and the healthcare provision someone gets depends on the member state they happen to be living (and working) in. These will be influenced by many factors such as the cost of living and the size of the public sector in that country. People are of course free to choose to live in another member state if they prefer (for now, at least).

michaels

Of course Luxemburg is allowed to have a lower VAT rate and mop up all internet sales and Eire a lower corp tax rate to mop up all company HQs.....

SnooksNJ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

im not sure; what do you think?

Im sure it has something to do with immigrants though

This immigrant wants to know the names of the politicians who think feminine hygiene products are a luxury.

littlegreenfrog_2

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Women have been lobbying about this for years but from what I understand it has taken UKIP to actually prompt any action.

I have also heard that the EU now have to have several meetings before it can be agreed and make take a couple of years to actually take effect.

Make no mistake, UKIP do not care about this. At all. They were just trying to clean up their image after they were accused of being sexist and old-fashioned (which they are).

This might be slightly controversial, but as a woman of child-bearing age and fully paid-up feminist, I do not care greatly about the "tampon tax" either. The VAT on a box of tampons is negligible. If homeless or otherwise vulnerable women can't afford to buy sanitary products, reducing the rate of VAT from 5% to zero is not going to make any difference. I think there should be more places where people who need these products and can't afford to pay for them can get them for free.

As someone who can afford to pay for tampons, I care much more about other issues such as equal pay and maternity/paternity rights. The EU has been instrumental in this area, and UKIP has consistently fought against any kind of progression.

For example, see this tweet from Nigel Farage in 2010.

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/27923829339?lang=en-gb

You're right that the EU is a very slow-moving machine, but if it takes them a while to get round to changing the VAT rating for sanitary products because they are busy doing more important things, that's probably fair enough.

princeofpounds

do you also favour harmonising income tax, NI, car tax, fuel tax etc etc

Simple question, proper answer would be very long.


In brief - I think tax harmonisation is important across single markets because it reduces economic distortions.


I would prefer it if such a harmonisation were the natural end product of tax competition, rather than an attempt to avoid tax competition.


I think it's more important for tradeables than non-tradeables.


And I don't think it's particularly important for a single good or subset of goods, as long as the overall system is broadly harmonised.

CLAPTON

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

No, not everything is relevant to the internal market. But VAT is because it directly affects the price of goods and services, so if you are going to be in an internal market with other countries, you need to agree a shared approach on these issues.

one would have thought that fuel tax, car tax, and tax rates (which are not standardised) also affect cost of living.

In reality, is not part of the VAT take given to the EU for their cost?

littlegreenfrog_2

Also, the EU don't really like the principle of anything being zero rated. The reason why certain things are currently zero rated is the result of political wrangling from certain member states (including the UK) to reach agreement in the first place. The reason why sanitary products are not zero rated is because the people who did the political wrangling at the time clearly didn't think it was important enough to argue about. It's not because the EU thinks having periods is a luxury.

michaels

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

Make no mistake, UKIP do not care about this. At all. They were just trying to clean up their image after they were accused of being sexist and old-fashioned (which they are).

This might be slightly controversial, but as a woman of child-bearing age and fully paid-up feminist, I do not care greatly about the "tampon tax" either. The VAT on a box of tampons is negligible. If homeless or otherwise vulnerable women can't afford to buy sanitary products, reducing the rate of VAT from 5% to zero is not going to make any difference. I think there should be more places where people who need these products and can't afford to pay for them can get them for free.

As someone who can afford to pay for tampons, I care much more about other issues such as equal pay and maternity/paternity rights. The EU has been instrumental in this area, and UKIP has consistently fought against any kind of progression.

For example, see this tweet from Nigel Farage in 2010.

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/27923829339?lang=en-gb

You're right that the EU is a very slow-moving machine, but if it takes them a while to get round to changing the VAT rating for sanitary products because they are busy doing more important things, that's probably fair enough.

I have a real problem with this abrogating of democracy: 'The EU is bringing about results I am in favour of when a govt elected by the majority of my countrymen might do otherwise, therefore I prefer to be goverend by the unelected bureaucrats'.

Problem with putting unelected bureaucrats in charge is that if they start doing things you don't like (abolishing freedom of speech, mandating resettlement of economic migrants) then there is nowt you can do about it.

littlegreenfrog_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

one would have thought that fuel tax, car tax, and tax rates (which are not standardised) also affect cost of living.

And yet we don't attempt to harmonise rents or house prices across the EU, and we don't force all member states to have either a public or a privatised healthcare system so everything is the same. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and wherever you draw it, many people will think it has been drawn in the wrong place.

CLAPTON wrote: »

In reality, is not part of the VAT take given to the EU for their cost?

I don't believe so.

littlegreenfrog_2

michaels wrote: »

I have a real problem with this abrogating of democracy: 'The EU is bringing about results I am in favour of when a govt elected by the majority of my countrymen might do otherwise, therefore I prefer to be goverend by the unelected bureaucrats'.

Problem with putting unelected bureaucrats in charge is that if they start doing things you don't like (abolishing freedom of speech, mandating resettlement of economic migrants) then there is nowt you can do about it.

The vote in favour of increased maternity rights was taken by the European Parliament, who are directly elected by EU citizens. That's what Nigel Farage was doing there. What do you find undemocratic about that?

Anyway, the example I gave was simply to demonstrate the hypocrisy of UKIP purporting to campaign against the "tampon tax", when it is clear that they have no interest whatsoever in women's issues and are merely trying to stir up anti-EU sentiment.