取消卫生棉条税:无成本还是得不偿失的胜利?

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
K. James
{"title":"取消卫生棉条税:无成本还是得不偿失的胜利?","authors":"K. James","doi":"10.1080/13200968.2022.2138189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2018 the conservative government in Australia yielded to a sustained campaign of public pressure to remove the goods and services tax (GST) on menstrual products. The campaign is regarded by many as an unequivocal success – an unjust tax was removed from a class of product purchased almost exclusively by women at a minimal cost to revenue. In the process it forced attention to women's bodies, women's rights and furthered the burgeoning menstrual rights movement. However, this article contends that this optimistic assessment is premised on an unduly narrow frame. A broader assessment of the relevant costs and gains of the campaign shows that the victory was neither complete nor costless. The narrow liberal concern of equal treatment on a single issue – the removal of the GST on menstrual products – left the underlying political and economic structures that subordinate women mostly unchallenged including in relation to key concerns of the menstrual rights movement such as the removal of menstrual stigma. Moreover, this singular focus on a narrow end through the pursuit of an anti-tax campaign runs the risk of undermining exactly the types of collective action required to address women's economic subordination within the tax and transfer system as well as the broader economy and society.","PeriodicalId":43532,"journal":{"name":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"193 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Removal of the Tampon Tax: A Costless or Pyrrhic Victory?\",\"authors\":\"K. James\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13200968.2022.2138189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In 2018 the conservative government in Australia yielded to a sustained campaign of public pressure to remove the goods and services tax (GST) on menstrual products. The campaign is regarded by many as an unequivocal success – an unjust tax was removed from a class of product purchased almost exclusively by women at a minimal cost to revenue. In the process it forced attention to women's bodies, women's rights and furthered the burgeoning menstrual rights movement. However, this article contends that this optimistic assessment is premised on an unduly narrow frame. A broader assessment of the relevant costs and gains of the campaign shows that the victory was neither complete nor costless. The narrow liberal concern of equal treatment on a single issue – the removal of the GST on menstrual products – left the underlying political and economic structures that subordinate women mostly unchallenged including in relation to key concerns of the menstrual rights movement such as the removal of menstrual stigma. Moreover, this singular focus on a narrow end through the pursuit of an anti-tax campaign runs the risk of undermining exactly the types of collective action required to address women's economic subordination within the tax and transfer system as well as the broader economy and society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Feminist Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"193 - 220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Feminist Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2138189\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2138189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要2018年,澳大利亚保守党政府屈服于持续的公众压力,要求取消经期用品的商品及服务税。这场运动被许多人视为一次明确的成功——从一类几乎完全由女性以最低收入成本购买的产品中取消了不公正的税收。在这个过程中,它迫使人们关注女性的身体和女性权利,并推动了蓬勃发展的月经权利运动。然而,这篇文章认为,这种乐观的评估是以一个过于狭窄的框架为前提的。对这场战役的相关成本和收益进行更广泛的评估表明,这场胜利既不是完全的,也不是没有成本的。在单一问题上平等待遇的狭隘自由主义关注——取消月经产品的商品及服务税——使从属女性的基本政治和经济结构基本上没有受到挑战,包括月经权利运动的关键关注,如消除月经污名。此外,通过开展反税收运动,这种单一地关注狭隘的目的,有可能恰恰破坏解决妇女在税收和转移制度以及更广泛的经济和社会中的经济从属地位所需的集体行动类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Removal of the Tampon Tax: A Costless or Pyrrhic Victory?
ABSTRACT In 2018 the conservative government in Australia yielded to a sustained campaign of public pressure to remove the goods and services tax (GST) on menstrual products. The campaign is regarded by many as an unequivocal success – an unjust tax was removed from a class of product purchased almost exclusively by women at a minimal cost to revenue. In the process it forced attention to women's bodies, women's rights and furthered the burgeoning menstrual rights movement. However, this article contends that this optimistic assessment is premised on an unduly narrow frame. A broader assessment of the relevant costs and gains of the campaign shows that the victory was neither complete nor costless. The narrow liberal concern of equal treatment on a single issue – the removal of the GST on menstrual products – left the underlying political and economic structures that subordinate women mostly unchallenged including in relation to key concerns of the menstrual rights movement such as the removal of menstrual stigma. Moreover, this singular focus on a narrow end through the pursuit of an anti-tax campaign runs the risk of undermining exactly the types of collective action required to address women's economic subordination within the tax and transfer system as well as the broader economy and society.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
40.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信