The Pink Tax: The cost of being a woman 

The gender wage gap has remained stable in the United States over the past 20 years, with women earning only 82% of their male counterparts earnings for full-time, year-round work as of 2022. Differences in education, skill and experience cannot fully explain such disparities, since women have on average surpassed men in college attainment. Instead, enduring inequalities across society and among certain job categories favor men for raises and promotions, with women (especially women of color) disproportionately represented in lower-paid yet important sectors (e.g., child care, home care) and often disadvantaged for decisions around parenting. Paid leave, while advancing in some states like Connecticut, is brief and limited compared with other advanced countries. In 2015, the pay gap came to nearly $10,500 a year, and $500,000 over a lifetime for average female employees. As if this wasn’t enough, beyond the workplace, women find themselves substantially disadvantaged as consumers.  

Women are subject to the “pink tax,”  a term applied to products and services aimed at women that cost substantially more than the same or similar products for men. This pervasive pricing bias results in women paying more than men for goods and services. From razors and soaps to dry cleaning, everyday items are often priced higher for women. Manufacturers claim a difference in production costs, despite contrary evidence; sometimes the only product difference is color.  

 Razors supply a striking example of the pink tax. Schick Slim Twin ST 2 Disposable Razors for Women Sensitive Skin are $14.29, while the counterpart for men is $12.79, a dollar and a half less. This discrepancy even extends to children’s toys; a pink Radio Flyer scooter sells for twice the price of its red counterpart. Although men’s and women’s products are rarely identical, making precise comparisons difficult, multiple surveys have shown higher prices for women’s products.  

Consumer Reports found common drugstore purchases, such as shaving cream, deodorant and body wash, “products directed at women — through packaging, description or name — might cost up to 50 percent more than similar products for men.” In 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (NYCDCA) examined nearly 400 pairs of products for sale by New York City retailers and determined women’s products were more than twice as likely to be priced higher than men’s products. Specifically, 42% of women’s products had a higher price tag, whereas men’s products had a higher price tag only 18% of the time. Women’s and men’s products were roughly equal 40% of the time. This pink tax stretches across industries and even generations, ranging from children’s bike helmets to senior health care products such as canes, with a 12% price difference.  

Despite being recognized for decades, the pink tax persists. In 1992, the NYCDCA investigated “price bias against women in the marketplace,” and issued a report concluding that women paid more than men at used car dealers, dry cleaners, laundromats and hair salons. 

In addition to the pink tax, many women pay a “gender tax” from sales taxes on feminine products. A California Senate study estimated that, in 1994, women alone effectively paid an additional annual tax of $1,351 each. While California took the pioneering step in 1995 by enacting a bill to protect consumers from gender-based price discrimination, data from 2014 and 2015 shows continued violations, and most states  — not including Connecticut — still impose sales tax on feminine hygiene products.  

This taxation adds to the economic challenges women face. Despite some progress, recent measures only begin to ease the burden — which includes the high cost of child care — although early childhood educators, mostly women, are underpaid. Continuing gender-based price disparities–the pink tax–undeniably impose real financial strains on women and their families. While an individual price difference may seem small, the cumulative cost is significant. 

Policymakers and consumers alike must work to dismantle the pink tax, ensuring an equitable economic landscape for all. Becoming aware of the pink tax can help female consumers navigate the marketplace effectively. With knowledge about pricing disparities, women can make informed decisions, minimizing the economic impact on their households. However, the persistence of the pink tax raises questions about the underlying factors contributing to gender-based price disparities throughout the economy. The issue goes beyond intentional gender discrimination; it reflects patterns and practices embedded in the market. As voters, citizens and consumers — of goods, services and information — together we can address these challenges. Awareness is the first step.