She doesn't know what she is talking about. Both women and men use razors and mostly women use tampons, so I don't understand why she thinks women should get razors for free. There is no correlation between these two items. Dumb woman is dumb
>>719870630 If it's the UK, it's because tampons/sanitary towels are considered luxury items and subjected to VAT. Razors (for both women and men) aren't. The question is why it's more important for women to shave and be smooth than it is for them to not uncontrollably squirt blood out their minges. Seems pretty reasonable, tbf
>>719871104 Well that's because it doesn't. It'll make the product the same price and people generally wouldn't notice a change, but instead of the 20% going to the government or wherever the VAT goes, itll now go to the manufacturer
>>719871046 She doesn't think women should get razors for free, nor does she think men get razors for free. The issue is about tax, and why tampons are taxed as a luxury good but razors aren't. The point isn't 'tax razors', it's 'don't tax female sanitary products'
>>719870630 So instead of saying "stop the VAT on tampons", this moron says this. She'd rather see VAT added onto razors than removed from tampons? Despite women also buying razors, probably more so than men? She'd fuck herself over just to get the smallest thing over men.
>>719871441 Yeah, I'd probably agree with this. Yet I don't think razors should VAT either. Seems pretty reasonable for tampons to not be considered a luxury item to me.
>>719871410 So imagine having to pay VAT on top of that. That's what she's upset about.
>>719871580 >Start new tampon manufacturing company, producing, say, £9 tampons. Get all the custom. Win. Also, as I understand it, pads are for less intense periods or something. So they're not completely interchangeable with tampons.
>>719871583 I think she's more highlighting how ridiculous it'd be for razors to be taxed, and therefore it's not unreasonable to want tampons to be untaxed. "stop the VAT on tampons" wouldn't have had the same emotional impact on you.
>>719872256 Assuming a woman uses 4800 tampons in her lifetime (40 years menstruating, twelve periods a year, ten tampons per period, no panty liners), only buys name brand, and gets them from Walmart, she's looking at spending $10 per 36 pack of tampons. That gives us $1,334 spent on tampons in her lifetime. In my area we have a 9% sales tax so that results in a lifetime tax expense of $120 dollars, or $3 per year in taxes. A good quality menstruation cup will cost $30 dollars and is reusable.
But tampons have a luxury tax because it's only 5%, because it pays 5% it doesn't have to pay VAT, which is 20%. If they remove the luxury tax then tampons will increase in price by around 15% because they'll have to pay VAT instead, just like razors.
I don't know how nobody has researched this and people still complain!
>>719872112 Tampons are not ecofriendly. Plus you can make tampons with any cloth. You can't shave without a blade. So, in your socialist, what-is-a-need deciding country, razors should have priorities.
At best, the should ask for equal vat on NOT disposable razoers AND tampons. Go and use a fucking menstrual cum you filthy bitch.
>>719873718 >Getting confused over what we're talking about She's complaining about tampon tax, not the environment, but I'm impressed your pair of brain cells rubbed together to make that link, even if it's non-sequitur and irrelevant.
I'm not a hurr durr tumblr blue haried feminazi, but that's pretty outrageous.
And no, taking off that extra tax would not just immeadiately result in the companies upping the prices.
If they had a monopoly, then yes it would. But that's just them figuring "they've been paying 10 euro anyway...They can keep paying 10" It's not the act of getting rid of a tax that immeadiately results in a tampons being 20% more costly to produce.
>>719874647 >make women pay the same for car insurance as men No. Men are objectively more likely to get into crashes at certain ages, and those crashes are more likely to be more serious/more expensive. If you start insisting we all pay the same, you're arguing for exactly the kind of mindless 'equality' that you claim to hate, the kind that ignores actual facts and figures.
>>719870876 >if we lose VAT on Tampons the 3 major manufacturers will just up the prices to gain a sweet 20% profit Wut. They'd still be making the same amount of money right? So why would they jack up prices?
>>719871205 >>719870876 I love how these two explain it perfectly, yet still this thread is filled with overly opinionated fuckheads who are mad at the bitch with the sign although they don't understand it.
>>719875674 I'm pretty aware of insurance laws etc, since it's my job. America is completely different to EU so I understand for you females get it cheaper, but over here where we get luxury tax they're the same. (It might be changing back though because brexit, but I think we'll keep that law)
>>719876027 because the government isnt going to remove VAT so why hike prices up and push their buyers to their competition? if VAT was removed then the public wouldnt bat an eye if the company raised its product to its original price
Hang on. So that 20% VAT was a TAX, right? Meaning the 20% wouldn't have EVER gone to the manufacturer previously, but the instant the tax is removed, you honestly think they would IMMEDIATELY bump their price up to make up the difference? ALL of them?? Together? Yeah, that's pants-on-head retarded, dude.
>>719876650 Anything women do is based on selfish pleasure.
Sanitary towels worked fine for millions of years to hide the scent of blood from predators.
In the 60s, dyke hags declared tampons as liberating - take a look at tampon advertising. The idea is that they can please themselves without the need of a man. Even the name, when translated "tam pon" means "without man".
Having one good point about some policy here or there doesn't excuse the house of cards identity politics are built upon. If this woman were a hiring manager at an HR department she would choose other women and minorities over me intentionally even if I was vastly more skilled, had more relevant experience and was already well liked by much of the actual staff. How do I know? It's happened to me. 6 months of volunteer work and making every friend at a job I really wanted meant nothing when a black woman showed up to an SJW human resources department, she just won automatically. I know you're sitting there and feeling proud of that and that's exactly what's wrong, that's exactly what got Donald Trump elected. You can't just turn over order in society to your unfair whim based on some weird shit you think, I mean, if everyone had done it I never would have gotten work at all because it would be very easy for them to find a minority they'd rather hire.
If you keep this up we'll actually kill you. It won't be over identity, you won't be swarmed by "nazis" though I forgive you for saying it since apparently identity is the only thing you know. No, you'll just get mobbed by people who are unemployed but really ought not to be unemployed, people who's social lives will be instantly ruined by unemployment because their culture is based on the idea they could get a job if they wanted one and don't have to change gender or skin colors to even be considered.
You want us to be the niggers now, I get it. But unemployed people are violent, fucking, think carefully.
>>719876876 They do only care about income. But I can choose who to give my money to. If a company acts in a way I don't like, say by hiking prices without any need, I have the amazing ability to not buy their things.
>>719876944 Statistically, young male drivers are involved in more expensive accidents than young female drivers are. Insurance is based on the statistical likelihood of you incurring a cost. Therefore young male drivers should pay more for insurance. I bet you're the kind of person who thinks women should be allowed to serve as front-line soldiers, even if they don't meet the same standards as men, since it's obviously more important to you to have equality than it is fairness.
>>719876359 no, but manufacturers will be able to up prices by 20% so that it's the same price for the public as before, but manufacturers take that 20% that would have usually gone to the government. Pls learn 2 read
>>719877713 I mean, at this point this is just belief. It's like arguing with a fundie who thinks the Earth's 6,000 years old.
You're welcome to have your beliefs, but I prefer rational thought. We're not going to agree, because we value different things: emotion for you, empirical data and evidence for me. Have a good day, Anon.
>>719877899 All you have is the politically oriented snippets and buzzwords with no research, knowledge, information or logic.
Far more men drive than women. Men drive longer distances and more frequently, and it has been shown that the majority of accidents involve women in other cars causing circumstances leading to the accident.
Hang yourself from a lamppost with a sign around your neck, fat dyke.
>>719877985 If I was a female, I'd source them online or something. I'd find something else to replace them, and I'd write a letter of complaint to whichever brand I normally brought from. I'd encourage my friends to do the same, and then when a brand dropped the price, I'd start to buy from them.
The companies care about making money. If we make it financially beneficial for them to behave in a 'good' way, then they'll do that. And I do think there'd be a big enough backlash over something like that that they'd have no choice.
Ovulation is not clockwork, neither is bleeding. Sometimes women don't bleed on time, sometimes women don't ovulate on time, sometimes the cycle is affected by pain, stress, or illness. Women aren't machines. Are you fucking stupid?
>>719878687 Are you fucking stupid. It can alter in length but a woman does not ovulate during menstruation you fucking retarded spastic. You have no idea about any of this and sound eight years old arguing a fantasy in a playground.
Just stop it, and read.
It is like saying sometimes women don't need to be pregnant to give birth, women aren't machines - it's all magic!!!!
>>719878146 I mean, it's not. Certainly in my country, the UK, young male drivers (17-25) are more likely to be in more expensive crashes than young female drivers (17-25). But hey, you're overly emotional and not going to listen to reason or statistics. That's fine, I don't judge you, Anon.
It's not magic. Let's say you have sex with your girlfriend on the last day of her menstruation, when she's still bleeding. Menstruation can be longer or shorter than one week, so it's difficult to predict. Your sperm stay inside her for three days, or maybe a little more or less. Her ovulation cycle is a little off, so she ovulates. She's pregnant.
It might be a little unlikely, but less so when you consider how often fertile women ovulate and how often people have sex. Surely some women have gotten pregnant "on their period."
>>719879296 Really dude, read up on how the process works. It will take you about five minutes to find out "oh, he was right, I was talking bollocks for no reason at all - I wish I could apologise to him publicly, now I'll always regret my stupidity".
>>719879584 One woman is bad, therefore they're all bad? That's like a woman knowing one creepy guy and declaring all guys are rapists.
>>719879500 You haven't given any facts. But that's fine, like I say, I'm not expecting you to, any more than I'd expect a religious fundamentalist to give factual arguments. I don't judge you for being emotional and needlessly insulting me either, by the way... It's a little sad, sure, but I guess it's just who you are, so I accept it. Stay safe, mate.
>>719879932 Keep living in ignorance then. Realise how stupid you sound "I won't read anything!! he can't make me!!! I'll show him!!! my theory based on something I overheard 5 years ago from a teacher is surely right, chaos theory or something!!!! there is a chance she can be pregnant by holding hands I heard one of my friends say!!! reading is for loozerz!!! faktz r lame!!!"
>>719880082 >>719880272 Exactly. It's stupid. There are plenty of shitty/creepy guys out there, but to call all guys shitty is stupid and comes across as an overly-emotional kneejerk reaction.
Likewise, calling all women stupid or dumb or lazy or unfaithful or whatever is exactly the same kind of overly-emotional kneejerk reaction. Some people are shitty, most aren't. The more of the world you see, the more you realise that's true.
>>719871322 >>719873415 yeah and obviously not many men are obliged to use a double edge or godforbid a straight edge. it's easier to cut yourself with a double edge if you don't know what you're doing, which is why they aren't as popular nevermind not advertised
>>719880859 I don't know if they have a surgery to make fake balls yet. I think they'd probably use rubber prostheses and stitch your flaps together to make a bag. Consider the expense though. Psychiatrist might be cheaper in the long run.
>>719870630 something about dollar a month shave club, harry's, and some government programs that give out razors to dudes. and honestly, i think she has a point, a lot of general healthcare stuff should be provided by the government along with a healthcare plan. of course, i might just be a nut who also wants each city to have a centralized, independent government ruled by a globally overarching socialist/laissez-faire government.
>>719881117 Every post your write reeks of an imbalanced mindset. What happened to you in your childhood? An extremely domineering mother, absent father, abusive relatives?
You can't read anything without skipping past it and filling in the blanks with your ideologies.
Your 'facts' are like saying women are statistically proven to steal from baby shops than men, meaning women are thieves. Without considering any of the reality whatsoever.
Try reading my original post again, with an objective mindset, if you can manage that. Then look up the facts surrounding it yourself, instead of parroting mindless and irrelevant generalised statistics espoused by ultra feministic lunatics.
>>719881514 At the end of the day, you can't challenge the fact that 17-25 year old males are more often in involved in more expensive car accidents than females of the same demographic. Your claims that men have more crashes because, really, it's /women/ that are the worse drivers is absurd. A claim you've still yet to back up with any evidence or data. This is why I call your beliefs beliefs. Again, I'm not judging you for that, and I hope you have a good day.
>>719881667 Ah, I think you're misunderstanding. I'm drawing a comparison, saying that calling all women shitty is like calling all men rapists. They're both stupid and obviously incorrect, which I thought it was obvious I was doing. Just to confirm, not all men are rapists, not all women are shitty. Does that clear it up for you?
>>719877471 >women should be allowed to serve as front-line soldiers, even if they don't meet the same standards as men, since it's obviously more important to you to have equality than it is fairness.
equality is what we want faggot. everyone, no matter what age, race, gender, or whatever the fuck else should be treated equal.
equality = you hit me i hit you back no matter who you are
fairness = you hit me i walk away so i don't hurt your fragile body
>>719871580 This is bullshit. If tampon manufacturers really had a monopoly (which they don't, hence the use of the plural "manufacturers") they could just as easily make tampons £10 without VAT and have consumers pay £12
>>719882285 At the end of the cliche, you can't challenge the fact that more women are thieves as 99% of all thefts from baby supplies shops are committed by women. Your claims that men don't go into baby supplies shops is irrelevant and absurd, and quite frankly, sexist. All women are thieves, and this is the proof, the statistic in isolation without any background, real numbers or anything, nor any proportional consideration, because I am rampantly obsessed with this idea that I read in women's weekly in the "did you know" section a few years ago while waiting in the hairdresser for my third restyle and colour that month. Ipso facto straw man logical phallic symbol, rage rage.
>>719881164 Online is the best place to buy them. Get a good double edged razor - Feather portable or Gillette tech (or a tech clone) then some DE blades - Feather (extremely sharp & unforgiving) or Derby extra. 100 blades cost around $15-20 USD, & the razor might cost $10-20.
Or get a straight razor, strop, & whetstone / diamond sharpening plate. Never buy a blade again. The Poles made a great razor for their cold war hospitals that was cheap like borscht & holds an edge great. Tough to find these days, though.
>>719883032 Again, you can't dispute that a higher portion of male drivers have accidents than women do. You keep claiming it's the fault of women, but you've got no data or evidence to back that up. It's a statistical fact. It's like if I ran a baby supply store and hired a female security guard to deal with the female thieves. Statistically, that't the right thing to do. It's the same reason why certain demographics should pay more because they have more crashes. The only person trying to draw gender issues into it is you. Point out the step in the following argument you disagree with:
>People who are more likely to have accidents should have higher premiums. >17-25 year old males are more likely to have accidents than 17-25 year old females. >17-25 year old males should pay higher premiums than 17-25 year old females.
You could take out the gender altogether and make it about old people, for instance, and the validity of the argument is the same.
I don't expect you to understand, or agree. I accept you have a different world-view to me, and that you rely more on emotion/gut-feel than on evidence or any kind of rational/reasoned thought. That's fine, though. If you keep repeating yourself like you have been, I'll stop replying and you can have the last word, if it helps you feel you won. I don't want to upset you.
>>719883815 Ever considered that you are an incredibly boring pseudo intellectual with nothing whatsoever to say.
Delete all your reddit-certified reaction image directory and try posting something original. You might improve over the years, but it takes practice and risking looking like an idiot the first few thousand times.
>>719884096 So you agree, all women are thieves. You never bothered to reread what was posted in the first place, nor commit yourself to further reading to satisfy your non-existent curiosity. Instead you just repeated the same nonsense in every post like a high grade aspergers, followed by the tired "belief kiddo 300 kills fundamentalist" rouse. Formulaic. I normally avoid the autist/aspergers mentions, but it is too accurate in this case. I don't know if you are aware of your condition, but most aren't unless externally diagnosed. I hope you can find the help and support you need. Lots of sufferers describe feeling relieved when they find out why they are different.
>>719876217 Women are worthless, face it, cuck. If we only had a great day where all women would get beheaded in the streets while all of us fuck their skulls in and throw them into the gas chambers, then it would be a great, great day.
These insane people, void of critical thinking skills are pointing to unequal outcomes and claiming it's due to unequal opportunity. In a truly free and equal opportunity society you are going to have various outcomes. You aren't going to have a 50/50 ratio of men and women, or all races represented in proportion to their population in the workplace or in earnings. You have to create a tyrannical society to make what these people want happen, where women and minorities are forced to study in fields they aren't interested in or companies are just forced to hire people with no applicable skills to meet a gender/racial quota (which is already happening). This is how you destroy a society, how you grind technological progress and competitiveness in the marketplace to a halt and why the left is not liberal and ultimately not even democratic. They are only pro-liberty in a few select areas necessary to draw certain groups of voters. Across the rest of the board their all regulations, taxing and policing. The only thing they are liberal with is expansion of government powers.
>>719884558 Oh, you mean your claims that women are worse drivers, and that they magically cause all other road accidents? See, those are claims. Without any evidence or anything to back them up, I have no reason to believe them. It's the evidence I'm asking for, and it's the evidence you keep failing to provide. You also repeatedly fail to answer a single point, or find a single problem with any of this, beyond "all women are actually shit drivers, I don't care what the evidence says".
To use your analogy, it's like saying "oh, women only have to steal from baby supply shops because they had all their money stolen by men already, so actually men are more likely to steal from baby supply shops". It's what we call non-sequitur, which means it doesn't follow. Again, you're clearly not a logical person, which is fine. Not everyone is. I don't see what you're getting so upset about.
>>719876428 That is literally how things work here in the UK, during the last administration to help businesses the Government reduced the VAT rate from 17.5% to 15% (its currently back at 20%) and no prices changed anywhere.
unlike other places we don't have advertised prices and then add tax on at point of sale ($4.99+Tax) we have an advertised prices which already include tax (£4.99=£4.16+VAT) so if the VAT changes up or down the listed price never changes, either the company selling it makes a bit more or a bit less money
and on that particular example Razors and Razors blades are retarded expensive in the UK the blades in my pic are £21.00 at my local supermarket, that's for 8, so £2.63 per blade or in Ameribucks that's $25.98 or $3.25 each
1. more men drive than women. 2. men own more expensive cars 3. men drive longer distances, and more frequently 4. women are involved in more accidents than men 5. the majority of accidents involving men, have a female driver as a secondary or tertiary driver at the scene.
These are facts. You can look them up.
Instead you will just spout off the same line over and over and over and never improve or learn anything for your entire life. If you are female and/or diagnosed with a mental illness, it might be time to seek help.
>>719885092 As for the baby shops. You even completely missed the point of that one. I'm beginning to pity you now. You really believe you are thinking in a straight forward manner. That's the delusion. Perhaps you'll be walking around muttering to yourself for weeks after this, every time you see a baby supply shop. Maybe you'll try to live out the fantasy by stealing a few things and keeping them as trophies.
One thing is for sure. You can't stop posting about driving in a tampon thread that was made to draw the attention towards the hysterical screaming elephants with meaningless placards. Friends of yours?
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.