Casey and Pennsylvania families take aim at the ‘pink tax’

As the mother of five daughters, Erin Wiggle has one thing to say to corporations that charge extra for women’s products: Stop.

“I wish the pink tax would go away just to even the playing field,” Wiggle, a Montgomery County resident, told the Pennsylvania Independent. “If it could just go away, that would be great.”

“Pink tax” does not refer to an official tax but is rather an informal term used to describe the practice of companies charging more for products and services marketed to women. Studies have repeatedly shown that consumers pay more for consumer goods geared toward women and girls, including deodorant, clothing and toys.

Those price discrepancies add up, especially for parents, Wiggle said. Combined with women on average earning less money than men in the United States (and worldwide) for doing the same work and corporations using inflation as a smokescreen to justify soaring profits, families told the Pennsylvania Independent that the pink tax feels like yet another financial attack on women.

“Now that I’m a mom and we have five girls, it’s a huge burden, because all the girls in the house need their own stuff,” said Wiggle, a U.S. Army veteran and the head of an animal rescue nonprofit whose daughters range in age from 3 to 23. “It’s a lot of money over the lifetime of a woman, and it adds up.”

“There’s lot of things we could have done with that money,” she continued. “I mean, we could have put it towards food and the food bills. You could have put it towards vacation.”

Some Democratic lawmakers at the state and local levels have tackled gender-based price differences with legislation. California Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023 and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2020, for example, signed legislation that banned pink tax practices. Miami-Dade County in Florida has also outlawed gender-based price differences.

However, more needs to be done, said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.

“Big corporations have long hiked the costs of essential products for women and girls, from toiletries to sports equipment to car insurance,” Casey said in a statement prepared for the Pennsylvania Independent. “I’m fighting back against the corporate CEOs who are nickel and diming families, whether by pink-taxing them or by jacking up prices under the cover of inflation. In addition to taking on corporate greed, we also finally need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to close the gender pay gap once and for all.”

Casey has been raising awareness about the pink tax, as well as about what he calls “greedflation,” corporations raking in massive profits while continuing to raise prices for consumers. In April, Casey released a report detailing the harm done by the pink tax.

In that report, the senator’s office showcases the differences in prices for men’s and women’s items. A pair of jeans marketed to men, for example, was $79.50, while the women’s version of the same pants was $98. A pink batting helmet was $27.95, but the same helmet in blue was $23.30. The report also notes that women can be forced to pay more than men for their auto insurance.

“It’s clear that the pink tax plus greedflation equals a double whammy for American women,” the report says. “When women are forced to pay more than men for the same goods and services, it not only takes a toll on their budgets and bank accounts, it puts them at a financial disadvantage in our economy.

“The pink tax is just one more example of corporations maximizing profit at the expense of American families, leaving everyone in the family with less money to spend on the things they need to survive and thrive,” it continues.

Democratic federal lawmakers have tried to pass legislation addressing the pink tax without much success. U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, a Democrat from Texas, and U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Colorado Democrat, in April introduced the Pink Tariffs Study Act. That legislation would mandate a federal investigation into the prevalence and impact of the pink tax. It remains in committee in the Republican-controlled House.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier of California in 2021 introduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act, which would have prohibited gender-based price differences. That bill never made it out of committee.

Other legislation could help to address gender-based discrimination, Casey emphasized. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which he co-sponsored, would help to close the wage gap between men and women by strengthening the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and ensuring that women can challenge employers who pay them less.

Sarah Zipp, an Adams County resident and the mother of two teenage daughters, said she’d love to see an elimination of the pink tax.

“It’s good for the economy; it’s good for families; it’s good for the bottom line of people trying to make it paycheck to paycheck,” said Zipp, an associate professor of sports management at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Maryland. Zipp’s research focuses on menstrual health and period poverty.

As corporate profits hit record highs, it’s especially hard to stomach families being harmed by the pink tax, Zipp said.

“Most of these products we’re talking about — razors and toiletries and menstrual products — these come from big multinational companies that make billions, and they don’t really need our extra nickels and dimes, right?” Zipp said.

In addition, the money that families could save without the pink tax could go to pay bills or to locally owned shops.

“For a family who’s making it paycheck to paycheck, they just get that much closer to their goals,” Zipp said. “If they’re really scraping by, then that really helps them. For a family that’s a little more financially secure, like mine, if I can save $20 or $30 a month not paying a pink tax for me and my girls, those costs for my family, I can spend that at the local farmers market or at the local cafe or business.”