Chemist’s ‘man tax’ sparks outrage

A PHARMACY has sparked fierce debate after introducing a 7 per cent “man tax” to raise awareness of gender pricing discrimination.

Great publicity stunt. Picture: sam535/Reddit

A NEW York pharmacy has introduced a 7 per cent “man tax” to raise awareness of gender pricing discrimination, sparking fierce debate online.

Local website Gothamist reports Thompson Chemists in upscale SoHo announced the new store policy on Monday with two signs in its front windows. “All male customers are subject to a 7 per cent man tax,” read one sign, with the second adding: “All female customers shop tax free.”

The 7 per cent figure comes from a study last year by the NYC Consumer Affairs Department into gender pricing, which found products marketed to women on average cost 7 per cent more than equivalent products for men.

Thompson Chemists owner Jolie Alony told Gothamist she wanted men who shopped at her store to understand the extra costs women bear when they shop. “We want to bring awareness on how it feels to be a woman, so the men actually get to feel it,” she said.

Ms Alony clarified that men weren’t actually being forced to pay more — instead, she is effectively offering a 7 per cent discount for women by cutting out sales tax, and making up the difference herself. “So far, the women are very, very happy,” she said. “Men haven’t complained yet, they’ve just laughed.”

Despite Ms Alony describing the tax as a “promotion”, the story sparked fierce debate on social media. “Is not gender a protected class? I think this is pretty f****** illegal,” wrote Reddit user Fantasysage in the New York City group.

“This is sexism at its finest,” Anne_Danke wrote. “Is that even legal? Especially in such a liberal place like the city!”

But according to NYC Consumer Affairs, quoted by Gothamist, the policy is legal because there is no law against price discrimination on goods, only services.

Many still weren’t happy, however. “Grats on shutting down in a few months because no one goes to your store any more,” bushysmalls said. Uniquememerinos argued “blatant misandry” was an “easy way to lose business”, while bahhumbugger described the policy as “bigoted”.

Others pointed out potential complications. “Why would they assume genders?” alexsoccer20 asked. “I thought this was 2016?! Triggered.” Cuhpanyuh added: “I wonder if they would apply that tax to a black or transgender man buying tampons?”

But as they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. “I have to say that it seemed initially stupid, but seeing all the free publicity they’re getting, it now seems like a pretty smart move,” TomSwirly wrote. “If they can avoid getting fined by the government.”