The “pink tax”, despite receiving this name, is not precisely a tribute in itself, but rather an overpricing phenomenon for “female” products when compared to the same “male” products.
Far beyond the most consumed products on March 8 (flowers and chocolates), the pink tax affects the daily lives of women, who spend about 10% more on products that are intended for them when compared to those intended for men. The expression “pink tax” was coined in a study done by a consumer agency in New York City in the United States, in 2015. “Tax” figuratively refers to the higher price that women have to pay for their products, as if in fact the price of those were calculated with the incidence of a tax that does not reach the goods for the male public. The choice of “Pink”, in turn, has a direct connection with the fact that most consumer products are sold in pink: toothbrushes, deodorants, hair removal blades and even soaps.
In Brazil, the American study was replicated in 2017 by the Professional Master’s Degree in Consumer Behavior (MPCC) group of the Superior School of Advertising and Marketing (ESPM) in the city of São Paulo. The group concluded that “pink” products have a 12.3% overprice when compared to common products. In addition, the price difference is not restricted to material goods, but is also present in services: haircuts, waxing and even exclusively female transport services are up to 27% more expensive.
It is important to highlight that the Pink Tax phenomenon does not lie in women’s obligation to pay more for the same products and services, but in the observation that products presented as designed or conceived for women are more expensive than those designed for men. Furthermore, the female public that is unaware of this overpricing is easily manipulated into buying products that make use of this practice. When a product has “for men” on its label, there is an automatic feeling that that formula will not be beneficial for women’s specificities – which are sometimes unrealistic, considering that the Pink Tax affects universal goods, such as toothpaste.
But why does Pink Tax exist? According to researchers in the field, the phenomenon is based on two basic premises: the stereotype that women consume more than men, and that the sale of products especially to the female audience translates an idea of inclusion.
In the first argument, one must reflect on how women are seen as the most consumerist, the ones who spend the most on beauty and fashion products. Whether you like it or not, the premise is still true, after all women (as a rule) consume much more superfluous products than men. However, the question calls for an even deeper analysis: the “exaggerated” consumption of makeup and clothing reflects women’s difficulties in reaching an extremely high standard that does not exist for men. Wearing make-up, being well dressed, especially in the latest trends in the fashion world, with a cut hair and a youthful skin – almost always due to aesthetic services – are some of the requirements of the successful woman. The second point is also true. In a world built by men for men, the inclusion of “feminine” products by brands alludes to the ideal of equal participation in the market. Women feel good about consuming products made specifically for them.
The phenomenon is still equally present in products intended only for women. An example is the taxation (this time in its literal sense) of tampons. According to the Impostometer, an index maintained by the São Paulo Trade Association, in the State of São Paulo, tampons in 2020 had an average tax rate of 34.48%, a calculation that includes PIS, COFINS and ICMS. Compared to other goods, tampons, according to the principle of selectivity and for ICMS taxation purposes, are more superfluous than jewelry, perfumes and cosmetics.
Those who think that overpricing only affects adult women are also wrong. A survey conducted by the Brazilian Association of Financial Educators (Abefin) revealed that parents who have daughters spend up to 30% more than parents who have boys. The difference in spending reveals another problem that perpetuates the price asymmetry between women and men’s products: the fact that girls consume and must like to consume more than boys.
The solution to the Pink Tax, however, is more complex than it appears. This is because, in addition to the few studies carried out in the area, it is difficult to establish an objective parameter to check whether a product is in fact more expensive just because it is intended for women, or whether changes in packaging and its colors really spend more resources on its production and research.
Therefore, the consumer’s own positioning is the most effective way to deflate this practice of overpricing. In a country where women are paid less than their male counterparts, and at the same time pay more for their products, it is necessary to be aware of some practices that can benefit women’s finances: price comparison, reasoning if the separation of products by gender brings some real benefit, or the simple purchase of “neutral” products are some of these instruments.
*Flávia Sant’anna Benites, partner at Ernesto Borges Advogados, works in litigation and advisory, including the preparation of legal opinions, strategic analyzes (Special Regimes, Agreement Term), overviews of tax assets and liabilities, restitution of undue tax, defenses in tax assessments and other tax issues. Bachelor of Law from the Faculty of Law “Toledo Institution of Teaching of Presidente Prudente – State of São Paulo”. Specialization in Tax Law from the Brazilian Institute of Tax Studies – IBET. Postgraduate in Public Law from the School of Law of the Public Ministry.
Available at: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/344186/imposto-rosa-preco-de-ser-mulher
Autor: Flávia Sant'Anna Benites • email: flavia@ernestoborges.com.br • Tel.: +55 67 99984 1406
