If you think that taxes applying to tampons is immoral,
consider the tax on the Bill of Rights
Recently, an article which was published last June by Fortune magazine was brought to my attention. In this article, author Natasha Bach rails against 35 states which still have a tax on feminine hygiene products. The author goes on at length about how unfair it is that this tax exists. It details how a couple of companies are teaming up with Columbia Law school and how they are going to spend an unnamed amount of resources battling the 35 states which still have this tax. The article almost leads you to believe that this is the greatest problem facing women since the Scold’s Bridle was en vogue.
We at The Liberty Block believe that taxation is pure extortion and is immoral. While we are sympathetic to the outrage over sales tax being applied to hygiene products, it is clear that there are products that should have a greater level of outrage applied to them. Those products are firearms and ammunition. American women must deal with their menstrual cycle between the ages of 12 and 51 on average. The age range that they need to worry about defending their lives extends from birth until death. There is no manufactured outrage for people trying to protect themselves or for the undue burdens placed on them from the gun and ammo tax.
For example, The Liberty Block writers know of a woman in her 60s who is barely 5 feet tall. She is arthritic and can no longer run from a bad guy if pursued. She is exactly the kind of person who would benefit from owning a firearm for self-defense. However, she lives in a state where she must jump through more hoops than a lion in a circus act simply to legally purchased the firearm. In her state, she has to pay fees for a background check which is not required to exercise any other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Realistically, it’s impossible for her to obtain a firearm, because her state’s politicians refuse all permit applications unless they are magically convinced by the applicant (generally if the applicant has money or power).
The background check, of course, comes with a fee. A gun tax. In addition to the sales taxes, there are other taxes and fees applied to the purchase and ownership of firearms. If this woman lived in the state of California she would also be subject to a one dollar fee every time she purchased ammo. An ammo tax. She would also undergo a background check to purchase that ammo. This is an undue burden placed on anyone trying to protect their life who might be too frail to use any method other than a firearm.
The Congress of the United States, in 2018 also chose to attack the elderly and the weak when ten Democrats introduced HR 5103. This bill would have drastically increased federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition,further placing self-defense out of the reach of those least able to defend themselves from an attacker.
Perhaps Fortune magazine should focus more on identifying the real problem with taxation on products that are essential to people’s lives. The gun and ammunition tax affects everybody, not just women who happened to fall within a certain age range. A tax on a product used for self-defense certainly violates natural rights and some could argue violates The Second Amendment since the combination of excise and sales tax on both the firearm and ammunition combined with the various fees necessary to purchase the guns and ammunition puts self-defense out of the price range of many lower-income individuals. None of the rights recognized in the Constitution should be limited to those with the financial means to exercise them. The elderly on fixed incomes and residents of impoverished inner-city neighborhoods are particularly harmed by these immoral taxes.
Ironically, a popular British legend, “Robin Hood” is about a man using the weapons of the day to fight heavy-handed taxation of those who could at least afford to be taxed or defend themselves from the immoral government they suffered under. Perhaps the man-hating Forbes writer should have focused her energies on highlighting the fees and taxes which should be eliminated before any other. Guns and ammunition are needed by every member of society that wishes to be able to defend themselves from burglars and rogue governments alike. Women in their fertile years and women past menopause are all affected by the high cost of self-defense. It is callous for the author to ignore those women who no longer need to buy feminine products.
While my heart bleeds for those who must pay taxes on tampons and other feminine products, the extra fees placed on firearms and ammunition are far greater than the sales tax on one small class of products being sold to a large, but still limited set of customers of one gender between certain ages. I cannot ignore the fact that everybody who is unable to afford the means of self-preservation suffers when they cannot buy what they need because of burdensome immoral financial burdens placed on them by gangster politicians who have protective ‘enforcers’ surrounding them. If we are to end the tax on the tampon, we should eliminate the tax on the guns and ammo first – and then on every other product. This is compassionate to every person, not just a select group.