Sex may be taxing but should it be taxed? Certainly it may please some to make all life's pleasures subject to charge, but is it allowable? Of course I refer to what some retailers call "gender charging" - but a serious point is made. Is it really fair that one sex in effect pays more for its shopping than the other simply because gender specific products are not tax exempt (e.g. tampons)? One New York pharmacy thinks not and has now introduced an extra charge for men to make the point. In reality it is a discount for women and whilst this could still be regarded as unlawful direct discrimination they say most men have taken it in good spirit. Interesting. They missed a trick though - they should of course have called it a "Sir-charge" (sorry)!!
A New York pharmacy has been on the receiving end of a backlash after announcing a new store policy that "all male customers are subject to a 7% Man Tax". The unofficial levy was announced in the window of Thompson Chemists in the Soho district of Manhattan on Monday, alongside another sign declaring that "all female customers shop tax free". The move has triggered a passionate debate on Reddit and Facebook, fuelled by an image of the independent shop's window, which has been viewed several hundred thousand times on the photo sharing site Imgur.