THE PINK TAX: CAN LAWS PREVENT GENDER BASED PRICE DISCRIMINATION IN INDIA

[MANSI VAISHIST]

THE PINK TAX: CAN LAWS PREVENT GENDER BASED PRICE

DISCRIMINATION IN INDIA 

THE PINK TAX-THE COST OF BEING A WOMAN? THE COST OF BEING A FEMALE CONSUMER? GENDER -BASED PRICING DISCRIMINATION? PRICING MODEL? TRAP?  WHY ARE WOMAN PAYING MORE THAN MEN FOR THE SAME PRODUCT? A HIDDEN COST OF GENDER?IS TAX SEXIST?WHY PINK?IT’S TIME TO….RETHINKPINK

 ‘‘Taxes are universal burden in moral as well as in civil life. There is not a pleasure, social, otherwise,which is not assessed by fate at its full value.’’ ~ Alfred de Musset

ABSTRACT

Ladies, have you ever heard of The Pink Tax?

The Pink tax, the invisible extra cost that women pay for products that are specifically marketed towards them-while the same products when marketed for men are priced lower. The crimson tax is not just about razors and shampoo. It’s a systematic issue that displays how society values women’s desires and monetary independence. Expertise this issue is crucial for advocating a fair pricing and consumer rights. Women have to pay more than men .But why this biased treatment? Have you ever thought that why the products designed for the females are more expensive than man? So right here comes the phenomenon ie.Gender-Based pricing,also referred to as ‘PINK TAX’- where a price is fixed on the premise of your gender.  This may feed a never-ending cycle of inequality and impoverishment . It has a tendency to widen economic disparities among males and females outside of the consumer market. This paper will explore the cost associated with being a  women,according to attractiveness bias.The goal of the study is not to deter any woman from spending money the way they want to,but rather to make woman educated and to empower them to ensure that they are not being taken advantage of ! This pursuits to understand the gendered perspectives on pink tax, offering insights for societal modifications and promoting fair consumer practices.

Keywords :Pink Tax, Gender-based Pricing, Gender, Attractiveness bias, Societal modifications, Consumer practices

INTRODUCTION

This paper addresses the Elephant of the Room in the name of gender specificity. Althoughthe concept of pink tax has been around for a long time, it is still relatively unnoticed .The Pink tax is a tax on pink products, a shameful gender bias that women should respond to via shunning products.Researchers in gender inequality often point to what is known as the pink tax. For  people across the world it might have different meaning, and all of those are right. However, there is a generalization of PINK being a girlish colour. Pink is a colour with a lot of meaning, but in this case, it represents a completely meaningless form of discrimination. This Tax refers to the tendency for products marketed specially towards women to be more expensive than those marketed towards men. It’s far a hidden price of gender, as women's products often bring higher expenses’ regardless of being essentially similar to men's version.The interruption of Private corporations ought to come to an ease, the concept of ‘PINK FOR GIRLS AND BLUE

FOR BOYS’ has been centred by way of manufacturers and lots of elements of consumer industries, strike more charges over women. This rate discrepancy isn’t  professional tax, but rather a reflection of gender-based price discrimination. According to Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, "equality between men and women is not a women's issue; it is a human issue." The pink tax perpetuates harmful notions and outdated gender stereotypes in addition to jeopardizing women's financial security.

A study related to 794 products discovered full-size price disparities between women's and men's products, including 7% more highly- priced toys and accessories, 4% more expensive children's clothing, 8% more expensive adult clothing, 13% extra expensive personal care products, and 8% more expensive senior/home health care products. The study also revealed that some products, such as a pink razor, were charged higher prices for plus size women's clothing but not for men's clothing. 

Examples of pink tax includes women’s  personal care products including lotions, deodorants, shaving gels/creams, razors, razor cartridges, body sprays, bar soaps, liquid soaps,shampoos, apparel, dry cleaning,clothing, shoes, and cosmetics marketed exclusively for women; haircuts, which are typically 60% more expensive than a man's. If 'A' and 'B', a husband and wife, go for shopping and buy one piece of the same brand of shaving cream, 'B' may be charged more simply because the product is marketed as "feminine" rather than "masculine," despite having no reasonable justification for the price distinction.Women are charged greater for products designed to boosts femininity whilst being paid less for work that sustains the economy. 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

The present review was aimed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the knowledge, and attitude regarding Pink Tax among females .   

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess women's level of awareness regarding the pink tax.

2. To determine the factors contributing to the existence of the pink tax.

3. To investigate how pink tax vary among different age groups within female populations.

4. To make suggestions to minimise the pink tax.

METHODS

 A narrative review was designed. A systematic electronic search was used to identify relevant studies. Only original research papers were used in the study. The electronic databases searched were: Research gate, Scopus, Google scholar .

 The existing literatures were very systematically opted to recruit into this narrative review.

HISTORY OF THE PINK TAX

The subject was thoroughly investigated in markets where evidence of a pink tax has been found, including the US and the UK.  Because of this, women typically spend more than men do on the same products, even when the only apparent difference is in the packaging and/or scent.The industry exploits the fact that many women are unaware of the existence of pink tax, as they often do not compare prices of goods and services for both genders. This creates an implicit purchase barrier for women, who view these products as "not for me". This lack of information exacerbates the issue, indicating the continued life-style of the pink Tax. The industry believes that women are less sensitive to prices, leading them to pay more. The charges of product are determined by production costs and customer willingness, and companies often spend more on marketing to make products more attractive to women.

 Pink has an extended  history, dating back to World War II when it was considered a feminine colour. The shape changed into popularized with the aid of  Mamie Eisenhower, who is known as the mother of pink. In the 1980s, American companies began using pink and blue colors in advertising techniques, making pink synonymous with feminine shades.

Pink was initially diagnosed as a masculine color by Italian architect Leon Battista Alberti in 1435,because it was ambitious and vicious,matching the male soul and brown hair shade. In the 18th to 19th centuries, blue was considered a feminine color due to its association with slaves. Professor B. Paoletti from the University of Maryland performed studies on the colors of costumes used by children in the US, finding that most orphanage children's clothing in Europe was predominantly pink, while in the US from 1818 to 1882, vibrant hues  like pink, white, and purple had been typically utilized by men.The Pink Tax,  originating from genderbased pricing disparities,gained interest in latest years. It emerged in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, reflecting shifts in societal attitudes and economic practices. According to a report published by the Department of Consumer Affairs New York, titled  ‘Cradle to Crane’the cost of being female reported that women’s product’s incur higher costs at  an average  of 7% more expensive than men’s product.This raises sensitive troubles such as gender inequality and the concept of pink tax. International social media campaigns like #GenderPricing and #AxThePinkTax have drawn attention, but their influence still needs improvement.

PINK TAX IN INDIA

 Only 23% Indians are aware of Pink Tax and its impact on the Indian economy. It is an unnoticed practice in India wherein all kinds of products designed for women are more expensive as compared to similar ones sold for men. It highlights systemic pricing practices and raises questions about fairness and consumer rights.This existed because of the structure based on the patriarchal idea of controlling women’s bodies however their worth is measure to the arrival .It is not a governmental tax, rather an additional expense that women often incur just because they purchase something tailored to them and it has seeped into women’s products and increased the retail price .

Though, India has no specific laws addressing the pink tax, but consumer protection laws and anti-discrimination provisions can be invoked. Addressing the pink tax calls for awareness, advocacy and regulatory intervention.This practice is basically due to market segmentation, where corporations target different demographics with specialized products, often justifying higher prices by citing differences in packaging, branding, or ingredients. 

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 protects consumers from unfair trade practices, even as  in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently ruled that companies must ensure fair pricing practices and avoid discrimination based on gender.

 India has been fighting the pink tax for years, with up to 67% of citizens unaware of its history. The classification of personal care products is frequently discussed in relation to tax laws. Numerous items deemed "personal care" are vital daily necessities, such as menstrual pads, tampons, and other related products. Since these items are not classified as essential goods, they lack the tax exemptions that apply to groceries, canned foods, and prescription drugs. This classification results in what is known as the tampon tax, which treats menstrual products as non-essential items, placing an additional financial strain on those who menstruate and creating a discriminatory effect by making necessary products unaffordable for some individuals. A suggested approach to reduce this additional cost that women face simply for their natural bodily functions is to push for federal legislation that would free menstrual products from taxation. The government has removed the "tampon tax" in 2018 after obtaining over 4,00,000 signatures on online petitions opposing it from activists, celebrities, politicians, and entertainers. Research indicates that women pay 7 percent more for general products and 13% more for personal items, highlighting the pressing issue of gender-based pricing discrimination.The Global Gender Gap Report 2022 discloses 19% disparity between men and women in India. India raises significant legal and constitutional concerns regarding equality and discrimination. Despite provisions under the Indian Constitution, such as Article 14 guaranteeing equality, Articles 15 and 16, prohibiting discrimination, and Article 21, ensuring the right to live with dignity, there is no decisive legal framework specifically addressing this issue. Despite numerous objections raised against this non-voluntary practice, the judiciary has yet to make a decisive ruling.      

 HOW DOES THIS EFFCT US?

The pink tax and gender-based price discrimination negatively impact women and transgender individuals, exacerbating financial burdens.It reinforces harmful stereotypes,suggesting that products for women are more luxurious,justifying the higher price.The issue is twofold,the gender pay gap means that women are already paid less in their male counterparts for the same person. This discriminatory practice, which charges similar products to male-oriented ones, perpetuates gender-based inequality and hinders progress towards true gender parity. Recognizing these experiences can help policymakers align their efforts with legal principles of equality and non-discrimination. The reason why women have comparatively less purchasing power than men. It is not just an inconvenience -it’s a reflection of how deeply ingrained gender-based economic discrimination is in our society.

CONCLUSION 

Women already earn less due to the wage gap,and the pink tax makes it worse. In nutshell, the pink tax exists partly because some women's products have greater production costs, such as additional expenses associated with importing goods that customers bear. Some argue that the pink tax is a structural problem, with merchants and manufacturers charging more for women's clothing because they believe that women will still purchase it. While existing laws provide some protection against gender-based price discrimination, they are often limited in scope and enforcement. Stronger legal frameworks, combined with consumer activism and corporate responsibility, are essential for eliminating the pink tax. 

You can also refrain from supporting retailers who levy pink tax, go the generic version if the difference is not huge,and support companies who have shifted to gender – neutral pricing. The practice may lead to societal norm shifts, reinforcing gender-based pricing disparities and normalizing inequalities. It perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes and contributes to broader socio-economic inequalities through market practices. It has lowered financial independence and adverse psychological implications for women.The economic impact is not noticed, limiting women's financial efficiency. The discourse on the pink tax should promote equal opportunity for all consumers, regardless of gender, through collective efforts and a commitment to challenging systemic biases. Everyone deserves the same amount for the same good.

SUGGESTIONS

Women are unfairly charged more for pink razors compared to the blue razors. This is compounded by the wage gap between men and women .Some of the ways which can be opted to avoid paying pink tax in particular and capitalism in general are as follows;

To avoid becoming the victim of pink tax is the awareness . As awareness grows, focus should be on creating a market that treats all consumers fairly, regardless of gender .In 2018,the government removed the 12-14% GST on sanitary napkins due to public pressure and  knowledge. Therefore, consumers should be cautions while purchasing any goods. Another strategy to prevent gender based practices is to disclose brand names. Tagging well-known brands on social media raises concerns about their potential for gender discrimination. Avoid using preferred brands or products,we can prohibit products with gender – based pricing and prioritize stitched clothing above branded clothing.To address the pink tax implement regulatory oversight, support consumer advocacy, advocate for policy reforms and change the pricing practices that contribute to the pink tax. Legislative efforts at both state and federal levels are crucial in establishing regulations that prohibit gender -based price discrimination . To combat this, campaigns should be created to highlight unfair pricing practices, and consumers should seek legal action under consumer protection laws. Emphasize gender equality and economic fairness by promoting gender equality and ensuring a fair marketplace. Support the Gender neutral brands by purchasing from companies that offer equal pricing for all genders. Always compare prices between gender-marketed products to make informed purchasing decisions. Familiarize yourself with consumer rights regarding pricing discrimination to better advocate for fair pricing.

AUTHORED BY: MANSI VAISHIST

(3^RD Year Law student, GOVERNMENT WOMEN UNIVERSITY, KHANPUR)