Invisible costs for women: Pink tax and safety tax

Surprisingly, taxes that are not actual government taxes are still being paid by women. Both ‘pink tax’ or ‘gender tax’ and ‘safety tax’ are economic burdens that women face worldwide. The pink tax has existed for decades but gained mainstream recognition since the late 20th century.

Safety tax, on the other hand, has existed in practice even longer, but systematic documentation has brought it to the forefront explicitly in the 21st century. The World Economic Forum and the United Nations have stressed that gender-based price disparities are one of the major contributors to widening gender economic inequality.

Both the ‘pink tax’ and the ‘safety tax’ are globally prevalent, though the forms vary by region and product category. The initial debate was centred around the so-called ‘tampon tax’ that was a VAT or sales tax on menstrual products, but with time, it has expanded to include a broader range of goods and services marketed for men and women.

“Pink tax” refers to charging higher prices for products and services explicitly marketed for women than for similar or identical products and services marketed for men.

The price disparity, though well-documented across countries, remains widespread for products such as razors and razor cartridges, lotion, shower gels, deodorant, toys, clothing, tailoring expenses and shampoo, as well as for services such as haircuts, dry cleaning and other retail services.

Evidence shows that bikes and helmets are more costly than similar items for men. There are also differences in senior health care products, insurance, services and housing. While individual price differentials might seem insignificant, the cumulative narrative tells a different story.

Some manufacturers and retailers claim the price differential is due to higher production costs for women's products. However, substantial research has proved that even when production costs are similar, differential pricing still exists.

Research shows a 10 to 15% price hike on everyday products for men, despite the products appearing identical, with only minor variations in packaging or colour. There's also a substantial cumulative financial burden for women over their lifetime and this exacerbates the existing gender pay gap.

Safety tax has no legal identity and is not an economic term; it's a descriptive phrase that captures the hidden and extra costs women pay to feel safe and secure.

To protect themselves against gender-based violence and the fear of unsafe public spaces, they spend more on safer transportation options, housing options in safer neighbourhoods and protective technologies. It refers to indirect causes of security systems and the emotional burden of constant precautions for personal safety. These expenses are less spoken about and are not labelled, yet reflect deep societal and structural inequalities with disproportionate safety concerns for women.

A 2021 publication by the Kellogg School of Management shows that some countries and states within countries are framing laws to prevent this. Not only do women earn less than men, but they also pay more than men. The pink tax is a stark reminder that discrimination can appear in the least expected places.

In some parts of the world, such as America, Canada, India, Rwanda and Australia, as well as in some US states, such as California, legal reforms have recently emerged. Consumer awareness and public advocacy could help combat these unfair costs; together, the pink and safety taxes exacerbate global financial inequality.

The world needs to harness collective voices that can directly influence change against gender discriminatory pricing. Most women are unaware of the price differentials and the substantial savings that could be achieved in a fair system. Regulatory authorities, along with consumer education, can only bring about reform and change to ensure we live and thrive sustainably in an equitable society.