Taxing beauty
Finally. An issue where my brains can be at war with my emotions. Something that can unleash a powerful wave of rage and emotion. The question being: should we tax beauty products?
In actuality, it wasn't much of a personal war. There was a bit of an inner query: "shouldn't I be feeling something stronger than this?" Then, a quick response. "Nah. Big deal.” And really, that was how I felt: supportive of the tax measure introduced by Congressman Rodel Batocabe. (Full disclosure: We went to law school together, but he was waaaay ahead of me. Like, a dozen months, at least).
From what I can gather from the press coverage (you know I never read the actual bills), there are two categories that are proposed to be taxed. The first is products whose only purpose is to beautify, like lipsticks and foundation and mascara and whitening lotions. The second is cosmetic surgery, where the only intent is not to heal or cure, but to prettify.
In both instances, I think, if we need to prop up the government so that those with less means can be nurtured by the government, then it's acceptable to levy some sort of tax on those with more means. Of course, that's provided that the taxing measure has legitimate basis. Here, my thoughts are, if the well-heeled populace can afford to spend thousands and even millions on non-essential items, then they shouldn't grumble at the contribution to society that this measure will extract. (Think of it as their charitable donation? Less guilt on their conscience? Beauty with a purpose?)
You must be wondering at my attitude, considering my reputation as a champion for the oppressed, including those with less luck in the genetic lottery. Got you there. You thought I would be raining cusswords and hurling insults at the very idea of paying more for beauty, right?
Yes, yes, beauty is essential, but not that essential. Please. As that great crone Ruffa once said, what is really essential is visible only in test papers. Or something like that.
Senator Rex Gatchalian opposes the tax, saying that it unfairly imposes the tax burden on women. Therefore, there is some sort of gender inequality going on here. Let me assure the good Senator: there is no such gender bias. Trust me, some men are as vain as women, and can spend dramatically more on beauty products than women. (No, I'm not talking about myself!)
And this argument is not even limited to the pink dollar, where the gay portion of the populace can lavish copious quantities of cash on trimming their eyebrows and waxing their legs. I'm talking about the straight, type A peacock crowd, who do open their wallets for cologne and aftershave and gel, and more besides. I could Google and get imposing statistics on how much of their salaries men spend on products, but I am sure you, the reader, are raring to do the research yourself. So I'll do you the favor, and not cite too many statistics. (Note to editor: please feel free to include just even one stat here.)
Senator Risa Hontiveros likewise opposes the measure, saying ordinary women would be disproportionately impacted by the measure. Yes, there may be an impact on ordinary consumers (male and female), but the solution shouldn't be to throw the baby out with the perfumed bath water.
Perhaps the tax measure can be calibrated so that only beauty products above a certain sales price would fall within the tax? And of course, surgery that's recommended by a health professional such as correcting harelips or gender identity matching, should be exempt. That way, only the rich would be "hit" by the measure. Although, frankly, I doubt the well-heeled (and well pampered) will feel anything.
At the end of the day, it's all about sending a message. Government should tell its citizens, there are good ways for one to spend one's money, and there are others that aren't so important. And substance, over beauty, should always be picked. I thank you.
(I wonder if this will be included as a question in the Miss Universe beauty contest. I would bet on it.)
- Latest
