Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

I decided to do some math on a quote a news channel used in a report abou Louisiana getting rid of the “Pink Tax.” So fucking stupid.

Anyway, the guy said if this was around just a couple years ago when his daughter (now 3yo) was in diapers, he could have saved $100.00/month.....he’s guessing.

Well Jason, that’s a terrible guess.

While the pennies not being taxed won’t do much more than buy a gallon of gas each month for people buying diapers, that total of $11m the state is projected to lose will probably hurt. But that’s if you assume the state doesn’t mismanage or steal it.

Also, Louisiana is nothing but welfare niggers and taco niggers, so they weren’t seeing tax on their totals anyway when they used their food stamp card.

Still, it’s funny to see how shit like eliminating the “pink tax” is such bullshit. And the news would even publish some dumb quote like that. Convincing people they’re doing this big thing for, and I quote, “women and people with uteruses” and putting any kind of noticeable amount of money back in their pockets.

All part of the bigger picture.

I decided to do some math on a quote a news channel used in a report abou Louisiana getting rid of the “Pink Tax.” So fucking stupid. Anyway, the guy said if this was around just a couple years ago when his daughter (now 3yo) was in diapers, he could have saved $100.00/month.....he’s guessing. Well Jason, that’s a terrible guess. While the pennies not being taxed won’t do much more than buy a gallon of gas each month for people buying diapers, that total of $11m the state is projected to lose will probably hurt. But that’s if you assume the state doesn’t mismanage or steal it. Also, Louisiana is nothing but welfare niggers and taco niggers, so they weren’t seeing tax on their totals anyway when they used their food stamp card. Still, it’s funny to see how shit like eliminating the “pink tax” is such bullshit. And the news would even publish some dumb quote like that. Convincing people they’re doing this big thing for, and I quote, “women and people with uteruses” and putting any kind of noticeable amount of money back in their pockets. All part of the bigger picture.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

I’m for dumping sales tax altogether. Or, better, only charging taxes on niggers, kikes, and banks.

[–] • 1 pt

Can’t tax people who contribute nothing and earn nothing.

[–] • 2 pts

Niggers, banks, and jews like to buy shit with other people’s money. Make the money they use worth less.

[–] • 0 pt

The complaint of the same item costing more because it is pink leading to higher prices for women is absolutely retarded.

"We pay more for the exact same item"

"Then you're stupid. Just buy the non pink one"

[–] • 0 pt

Well, it’s nothing about the color. Ben though gender doesn’t exist, pink is associated with female. But females don’t exist except when they want special privileges.

Anyway, this “pink tax” is about necessary items when must purchase (like feminine hygiene products) and they feel they wouldn’t have to pay tax on them because they’re a necessity. Somehow other things like diapers got lumped in. Please don’t spend too much time thinking about it making any sense or having and real meaning in society.

So, the pink tax has been identified (so far) as state sales tax. This is usually combined with a county/parish tax at the register. This only applies to the Louisiana sales tax rate of 4.5%.

A bleeder could buy $100 worth or ~600 tampons , enough to last 30 menstrual cycles or almost 2 1/2 years of periods................and save enough money from the “abolishment of the pink tax” to buy a fucking gallon of gas.

My numbers from this come from the average woman using ~20 tampons per menstrual cycle and the cost of 48ct. Tampax Pearl tampons from Walmart.

The point of my infographic about the diapers was to show the stupid shit the news will publish, how bad people can be at math, and how ridiculous all this virtue signaling is.

[–] • 1 pt

In some cases, razors are one example, they make the claim that the color increases the cost. Which may very well be true because the difference in manufacturing costs or making fewer in a batch leading to higher production cost.

They make this same claim with shampoo, claiming that the only difference is the floral pattern on the bottle. I say, then buy the other bottle.

The fact is, usually either the product requires extra manufacturing steps to appeal visually to women or the product is not made the same way.

I forgot that tampons not being considered necessary items cause them to incur sales tax. But these other stupid complaints over color also happen.

[–] • 2 pts

I’m guessing the days of men’s soap and body wash scents being “manly” will end soon. Instead of Lion and Rustic Cabin, the scents will be 3 Months Pregnant and Tommy’s Cock.

[–] • 0 pt

I'm fuzzy on the math with this headline. If diapers cost $0.30 ea I'm calculating that a $100 per month diaper budget is only 333 diapers per month. How do you get over 7,000?

[–] • 2 pts

Not a $100/month diaper budget. The guy said the removal of the state tax on diapers for his daughter would have saved him $100/month which is fucking retarded.

He would have had to buy $2,222.00 worth of diapers each month to save $100 in that month.