Tough tittie honey

A new row has broken out over the so-called tampon tax after it emerged that a quarter of a million pounds from a controversial levy on women’s sanitary products is to be given to an anti-abortion organisation.

Some substantial number of women think that abortion is against women’s interests. As evidence the existence of the organisation itself. So, if tax is to be spent specifically upon women’s interests then why not?

But there was consternation on Saturday night among women’s groups and politicians who had campaigned on the issue after it emerged that £250,000 of that money is going to Life, a charity that campaigns against abortion and has been at the centre of controversy over the information provided by a network of unregulated pregnancy counselling centres.

A spokesperson for the End Violence Against Women Coalition said: “We are surprised to see that Life is the recipient of a very significant tampon tax grant. The government set out clearly that this money would be spent in ways that would address women’s specific needs and inequalities. It is hard to understand how a service offering counselling based on the fundamental premise that abortion is wrong, to vulnerable women, can do that.”

I thought the general view these days was that abortion is up to women and only women? And thus being anti-abortion is as much a women’s issue as being in favour of it, is it not?

Fortunately this will all go away in 2 years’ time as we’ll be out of the EU can can make tampons either zero rated or exempt, if we should choose to do so.

Although, of course, that will then be a new battle:

The government had originally faced a potential rebellion over the issue, after an amendment tabled by Sherriff won the backing of Eurosceptics keen to assert Britain’s power to set its own tax rates. Osborne had originally pledged to remove the tampon tax in November 2015, but was unable to do so due to regulations applied by the European Commission that prevented member states from doing so.

The government said on Friday that it is committed to continuing the fund until EU rules allow a zero rate of VAT to be applied to women’s sanitary products and that a decision will be made on the future of the Fund once this has been achieved.

You can already hear the screams of this withdrawal of vital funding once the original justification vanishes, can’t you?

11 thoughts on “Tough tittie honey”

  1. They hypothicated spending from some part of VAT receipts? Why weren’t we told we had stepped on to that slippery slope. See you at the bottom.

  2. The Graun couldn’t bring itself to blame the EU for the tax, could it?

    And your conclusion is spot on! Reading your post was like hearing a gag to which I had already guessed the punchline.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    It is interesting to see what a phrase like “spent in ways that would address women’s specific needs and inequalities” somehow morphs into supporting whatever cause the Hard Left is behind today.

    Scum. Good for the government. Hard to believe they had the balls.

  4. I suppose you could say it is in the interests of female foetuses not to be selectively aborted, perhaps. Not that it isn’t in the interests of male foetuses too, but maybe it’s that they don’t like.

  5. A new row has broken out over the so-called tampon tax

    It’s like waving a red rag to a heifer.

  6. Tim, shouldn’t you be lecturing us about efficient taxation here? The EU is quite right to encourage flat VAT. It doesn’t make sense that I pay 20% if I buy a jumper when it’s, cold but 5% if I turn the heating up.

    By all means give women a couple of quid a month in benefits or tax breaks if that’s considered desirable. But let them spend it as they think best.

  7. Yeah, but the government’s increased the cost of gas and electricity because of its “green” policies, but that upsets voters so then it has to reduce tax so the cost increase isn’t so high.

    It’s insanity, but of quite a high order.

  8. @Merle It doesn’t make sense that I pay 20% if I buy a jumper when it’s, cold but 5% if I turn the heating up.

    It’s the gummint’s way of telling you to turn up the heating rather than buy a jumper.

  9. Perhaps the tax should be used to pay for the aged spinsters that the future will bring.
    Probably doesn’t matter as sooner or later the diverse may change the rules.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *