California SB 92 (Chapter 34, 6/27/19) adds two new sales tax exemptions starting 1/1/20 and ending 12/31/21:
- “diapers designed, manufactured, processed, fabricated, or packaged for use by infants, toddlers, and children” [R&T 6363.9]
- “menstrual hygiene products” shall only include the following: (1) Tampons. (2) Sanitary napkins primarily designed and labeled for menstrual hygiene use. (3) Menstrual sponges. (4) Menstrual cups.” [R&T 6363.10]
For these new temporary sales tax exemptions, the legislature applies R&T §41 dealing with accountability. Thus, the legislature had to specify the purpose of the exemptions and require a report from the LAO on the effectiveness of these provisions including whether they should be modified, extended, or allowed to expire. For the diaper exemption, the LAO is also to assess “whether more targeted approaches to providing families in need with adequate access to diapers are available.” For the menstrual products, the LAO is also to assess “whether more targeted approaches to providing individuals in need with adequate access to menstrual hygiene products are available.” The specified goals of these exemptions:
· Diapers: “to promote public health by increasing the affordability of, and expanding access to, diapers.”
· Menstrual hygiene products: “to promote public health by increasing the affordability of, and expanding access to, menstrual hygiene products.”
Observation: Often, bills that provide a new credit or exemption state that R&T §41 does not apply. Then there is no need for accountability as to whether the provision meets its purpose or even that a purpose be articulated. Important to this assessment though is whether the LAO will have the information needed for a strong assessment. The legislation should have included a provision and funding to have the LAO identify information it will need the CDTFA to collect.
Other states provide similar exemptions with the sales tax on menstrual products sometimes referred to as the pink tax or the tampon tax. States with an exemption include Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.
Do these exemptions reflect good tax policy? NO. The biggest issue is equity and fairness in that they give the largest break to higher income buyers because they are likely to spend more on diapers. I see that on Amazon, diapers range from 11 cents/diaper up to at least 49 cents/diaper. Someone already buying the more expensive diapers doesn’t need a sales tax break to make diapers more affordable as they have already opted to not buy a less expensive diaper that would be more affordable. If the exemption were only given to individuals who need it and who may need even more assistance in paying the price without the sales tax, this exemption is poorly targeted. A similar argument can be made for the menstrual products.
There are better ways to target relief to taxpayers needing relief rather than also giving relief to those who don’t need it. This sales tax break results in reduced revenue for state and local governments. How will they make it up?
More targeted relief would be to provide diaper coupons to individuals already receiving state or local aid, or just giving them diapers which the state would buy in bulk at a reduced cost. Same with menstrual products.
Another concern with these products is that there are added environmental costs of these disposable items. Thus, removing the tax on them means that the costs of disposal and filling up landfills needs to come from elsewhere.
What about the argument that only females need menstrual products so taxing them is a gender disparity. That same argument can be made for other products such as razors, shaving cream, jock straps, football helmets, and I’m sure other items. Exempting these items makes the system more complex, less equitable, and requires that the rate be higher on other items.
The California Legislative Analysts Office issued a report (5/12/19) on these exemptions before enactment of S 92. It notes a few additional issues including the difficulty of defining a “necessity” and whether an income tax credit for the menstrual products would present greater tax relief.
What do you think?