Sales and use taxes: exemption: menstrual hygiene products.
The proposed changes are set to have significant implications for state tax laws, particularly by establishing the principle that menstrual hygiene products should not incur sales tax similar to other essential goods like food and medicine. The bill also modifies current provisions that require the state to reimburse local agencies for revenue losses due to tax exemptions. Instead, it stipulates that no appropriation will be made for these lost revenues, placing the financial implications directly on local governments without state support.
Assembly Bill 31, authored by Assembly Members Cristina Garcia and others, seeks to exempt menstrual hygiene products from sales and use taxes in California. This bill extends an existing tax exemption for items such as tampons, sanitary napkins, menstrual sponges, and menstrual cups until January 1, 2027, with additional provisions that also include menstrual underwear beginning July 1, 2023. The intent behind this legislation is to promote gender equity within the state's tax laws, recognizing that menstrual products are necessary health items rather than luxuries.
The sentiment surrounding AB 31 has been largely positive, especially among advocates for gender equity and women's health. Supporters highlight the importance of recognizing menstrual products as necessary for participation in society, and point out that California women collectively spend approximately $20 million in taxes on these products each year. Critics may raise concerns regarding the financial burden on local jurisdictions unable to recover lost revenues, but the overall dialogue remains focused on the equity this bill strives to achieve.
Notable points of contention include the fiscal implications for local governments which will not receive reimbursement for the lost sales tax revenue. Critics may argue that this could strain local budgets, especially for counties and cities that rely on these funds for essential services. Furthermore, the bill's broader implications for regional tax policy and local autonomy could stimulate debate about the balance between state mandates and local governance. This tension highlights the complexities of implementing tax exemptions that have far-reaching effects on community funding.