Should women pay higher PRSI than men?

Sleepy

After the nonsensical IMF suggestion of lower tax rates for women I got to thinking: shouldn't women be paying higher PRSI than men anyway?

Since, as a group, they live longer than men (and therefore collect pensions for longer) and are entitled to receive maternity benefits which their male counterparts have no entitlement to an equivalent of, the women of Ireland cost the state proportionally more in welfare payouts.

Since PRSI is a form of insurance, and it's legal to discriminate based on gender in that area (see car insurance), shouldn't there be a higher rate of PRSI (or premiums) for women since they're a "higher risk" category for that insurance than men are?

[thought a somewhat more light-hearted thread might be a nice change on this forum at the moment, I'm posting this a little tongue in cheek but I do think the logic is sound]

common sense brigade

I think both women and men should have the option to go on maternity leave. i.e the couple decide together who takes the leave or you can split it. The Irish system is out of date and extremely unfair to fathers. Also i do not think women should pay higher prsi.

Mr. Presentable

No, PRSI should not be higher for women. Neither should they be entitled to Welfare payments for a lifestyle choice, however.

cavedave

common sense brigade I think both women and men should have the option to go on maternity leave.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

common sense brigade

confused sorry. what do u mean?

optocynic

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

No, PRSI should not be higher for women. Neither should they be entitled to Welfare payments for a lifestyle choice, however.

I believe that statement too! But I find it strange that it is a view of fiscal responsibility that is darkly frowned upon here, but I have yet to meet a person face to face that disagrees with it.

Either way, it was an amusing and very tongue in cheek OP.
I feel a working couple should get help for childcare, so both can work.
It should always pay more to work!!

Mad Benny

cavedave wrote: »

I don't think that word means what you think it means

Thanks be to Jaysus on that one

I do agree with common sense brigade regarding Paternity Leave (I take it that's what you meant to say). If a mother wants to go back to paid employment then the father should be entitled to that time. It's not a holiday.

We needs lots of kids in the workforce when those of us that are 35+ retire. :cool:

common sense brigade

what i meant was if a woman gets 6 months maternity leave. the father should be able to do the maternity leave. if this is something the couple want and agree on. and the woman can return to work. or they can split it. the man do 3 months the woman 3 months. as i said only if the man and woman want that.

Sleepy

I agree on both the points of maternity leave being changed to parental leave and childcare being tax-deducatable (or some form of tax credit existing for it - perhaps in lieu of child benefit?)

That doesn't answer the other part of the equation though: a woman paying PRSI is statistically likely to receive more back in terms of the pension she'll receive on retirement than an otherwise equal man, shouldn't she therefore be paying more to reflect this?

common sense brigade

Is this the state pension you mean? I had maternity leave last year and i claimed back all my prsi when i returned to work. i know what your saying, cant argue with the logic!

optocynic

Mad Benny wrote: »

Thanks be to Jaysus on that one

I do agree with common sense brigade regarding Paternity Leave (I take it that's what you meant to say). If a mother wants to go back to paid employment then the father should be entitled to that time. It's not a holiday.

We needs lots of kids in the workforce when those of us that are 35+ retire. :cool:

Unfortunately, it is not the middle or upper class who are having the large amounts of kids. And dark as it is to say, lower income families tend to have kids that grow to be lower income too.

There is no incentive to have kids and keep working, if you consider the costs of childcare.

People say the fabled 'gap' between the lower and upper is too big. If we keep up the large welfare and no childcare help... it will only get bigger. As fewer 'better-off' kids arrive and go to college (for fees now), and take what remains of the 'good' jobs.

That movie Idiocracy is starting to seem less like a comedy!

Dannyboy83

There is some merit in what you say, although it could potentially be extended to genetic screening etc.
Discrimination is a bad idea, even if it's intended to create some type of balance - it never does - it just creates a new imbalance.

If crazy childcare costs are a barrier to women re-entering the workforce, then regulate childcare.
I mean, they do it with virtually everything else in the state, LOL.

common sense brigade

we need to have public creches. like school. you pay a nominal fee. i for one would agree with my childrens allowance being taken away if we had state creches with affordable childcare.and have childrens allowance given to the unemployed only. sorry for going off thread.

Sleepy

common sense brigade wrote: »

Is this the state pension you mean?

That's it exactly. A longer life expectancy after retirement means women can expect to receive more from the state in return for their PRSI contributions than a man can.

Jesus Wept

Good question OP. It shouldn't be considered cheeky or tongue in cheek or amusing though. It's not amusing that men can be discriminated upon based on gender in this country.

Either women should pay more prsi or other systems should be made equitable, the way things currently are is a joke.

If more money and focus were spent on men's health, men wouldn't have a shorter life expectancy than women, there is no good reason I know of as to why this should be the case and be accepted as just how it is.

common sense brigade wrote: »

I think both women and men should have the option to go on maternity leave. i.e the couple decide together who takes the leave or you can split it. The Irish system is out of date and extremely unfair to fathers. Also i do not think women should pay higher prsi.

Pretty certain this isn't possible in this country.

angelfire9

common sense brigade wrote: »

we need to have public creches. like school. you pay a nominal fee. i for one would agree with my childrens allowance being taken away if we had state creches with affordable childcare.and have childrens allowance given to the unemployed only. sorry for going off thread.

I agree
It would remove one of the back to work barriers that mothers face if there was a government creche system to take kids too young for school for a nominal fee

As for the topic at hand
I can understand the logic behind it and agree with the theory but would it not be discriminatory??

As for maternity/paternity leave
I'd LOVE IT if my hubby could get leave to mind the babs for the first 3 months and let me work think of all the nappy changes i'd avoid

ardmacha

The madness was that in the UK until fairly recently women retired earlier than men although they lived longer! Ireland had fairly sensible policies in this regard.

Sleepy

The-Rigger wrote: »

Good question OP. It shouldn't be considered cheeky or tongue in cheek or amusing though. It's not amusing that men can be discriminated upon based on gender in this country

Either women should pay more prsi or other systems should be made equitable, the way things currently are is a joke..

TBH, I agree. I'd be in favour of an absolute removal of references to gender from *ALL* legislation, from maternity entitlements to age of consent, rape issues etc.

If more money and focus were spent on men's health, men wouldn't have a shorter life expectancy than women, there is no good reason I know of as to why this should be the case and be accepted as just how it is.

You think? I've never seen a reason given for the gap in life expectancy between men and women and, tbh, just put it down to biology and, specifically, testosterone levels in young men making them more likely to come to untimely deaths.

Pretty certain this isn't possible in this country.

Not under current legislation but nothing stopping that being changed afaik?

angelfire9 wrote: »

I can understand the logic behind it and agree with the theory but would it not be discriminatory??

Is the current system not discriminatory if men are paying the same to receive less?

ardmacha wrote: »

The madness was that in the UK until fairly recently women retired earlier than men although they lived longer! Ireland had fairly sensible policies in this regard.

Surely you mean, less ridiculous rather than fairly sensible? We don't do sensible policy in Ireland!

jimmycrackcorm

I agree with the OP. There's also a case to make for employers, that women who invoke higher costs through sourcing replacements for maternity leave, should be paid lower to compensate for this.

In theory a hospital, with a very high percentage of female nurses, should be able to tap into a panel of replacement staff at the same pay rates, for the purposes of covering maternity. In practice though they may have to employ temporary agency staff at a more expensive rate.

Mad Benny

Points against..

Not all women want or do have kids.
Men typically live longer when married than those that remain as bachelors.
Women provide a vital service to an economy by producing future workers.
Having women in the workforce provides a balance and a different point of view.
Children's needs are better served when one parent cares for them full time in their first two years.

Any changes in taxation that would adversely effect any of the important contributions that women make would also have a cost. It's not just a monetary cost but also a social cost.

Sleepy

Mad Benny wrote: »

Points against..

Not all women want or do have kids.

Doesn't change the fact they're statistically likely to cost more to provide with a pension.

Men typically live longer when married than those that remain as bachelors.

More an argument to charge married men more PRSI than single men than an argument against the OP.

Women provide a vital service to an economy by producing future workers.

Not on their own they don't.

Having women in the workforce provides a balance and a different point of view.

Different <> better.

Having women in the workforce is desirable but this doesn't mean they should be subsidised by their male colleagues.

Children's needs are better served when one parent cares for them full time in their first two years.

Agree entirely. No reason that any inducements towards this should be gender based though. In fact, I'd argue that the status quo directly hinders gender equality.

Any changes in taxation that would adversely effect any of the important contributions that women make would also have a cost. It's not just a monetary cost but also a social cost.

I don't see your point here unless you're suggesting that gender discrimination against men is a good thing for society?

Mad Benny

I can't argue with any of your responses Sleepy. If you agree that parental leave should be optional for either parent then it's possible for a woman to work through her pregnancy and then go straight back to work after the baby is born while the father takes leave. Its fair in my mind that women should benefit by our taxation or social welfare system for the contribution that they have made. It's not an easy job being pregnant!

sollar

ardmacha wrote: »

The madness was that in the UK until fairly recently women retired earlier than men although they lived longer! Ireland had fairly sensible policies in this regard.

I think greece is 55 for women and 60 men. We should be striving for equality in all areas tax, retirement and prsi included.

Mr. Presentable

Mad Benny wrote: »

Points against..

Men typically live longer when married than those that remain as bachelors.
.

Nah, it just seems longer

Sorry, Mad, couldn't let that one go

optocynic

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Nah, it just seems longer

Sorry, Mad, couldn't let that one go

Damn, just beat me to it!
Wasn't it GB Shaw that said it first?:D

Sleepy

Mad Benny wrote: »

I can't argue with any of your responses Sleepy. If you agree that parental leave should be optional for either parent then it's possible for a woman to work through her pregnancy and then go straight back to work after the baby is born while the father takes leave.

Obviously most women can't return to work within 24 hours of having the baby but there's no good reason why maternity leave shouldn't be changed to parental leave to be divided between the parents as they see fit imho.

In most cases, the lower earner will take the majority of the leave. This should (though won't always) mean that the parent who contributes most to the economy is working longer.

It also reduces the disincentive for employers to hire women of child-bearing age imho.

Its fair in my mind that women should benefit by our taxation or social welfare system for the contribution that they have made. It's not an easy job being pregnant!

Why? As you said not all women have children so should we issue tax credits to mothers because they've chosen to give birth?

As the father of a two year old, from watching my partner during her pregnancy I'd agree that it's certainly not an easy job being pregnant. It's bad enough dealing with a pregnant woman tbh!

gizmo555

Sleepy wrote: »

You think? I've never seen a reason given for the gap in life expectancy between men and women and, tbh, just put it down to biology and, specifically, testosterone levels in young men making them more likely to come to untimely deaths.

That's part of the difference, but not all of it - not even most of it.

Even at 65 years of age, Irish women have a life expectancy of 19.8 more years, as opposed to 65 year old Irishmen's life expectancy of 16.6 years. (2006 statistics.)

The gap of 4.8 years at birth only narrows by about one third to 3.2 years by age 65.

The Corinthian

Personally, I do not believe that anyone should have to pay more PRSI or less tax based solely on their gender. Frankly the state should be looking to eliminate sexual discrimination and privilege, rather than add to it.

The question of whether we should apply the same standard to the private sector may another matter. Certainly car insurance has long been an excellent example of sexual discrimination for commercial reasons. Having said that, in some countries health insurance is higher for women for similar reasons (men may die younger, but women spend a lot more on health - probably related, tbh) - is this the case in Ireland?

And where does one stop with justifying sexual discrimination for commercial reasons? Not employing women, legally as opposed to unofficially, who fall in an age group likely to become mothers?

Ultimately whether it should be allowed or not is up to one's position on the free market and the principle of equality. Either way it should be applied equally though.

Sleepy

Your first paragraph sums up why I posted this topic 'tongue in cheek', The_Corinthian.

I'm not in favour of any discrimination or privelege but due to the logic behind the argument being sound I believe it's a useful thought exercise to encourage the removal of the gender descrimination inherrant in our current systems.

thebman

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I do not believe that anyone should have to pay more PRSI or less tax based solely on their gender. Frankly the state should be looking to eliminate sexual discrimination and privilege, rather than add to it.

The question of whether we should apply the same standard to the private sector may another matter. Certainly car insurance has long been an excellent example of sexual discrimination for commercial reasons. Having said that, in some countries health insurance is higher for women for similar reasons (men may die younger, but women spend a lot more on health - probably related, tbh) - is this the case in Ireland?

And where does one stop with justifying sexual discrimination for commercial reasons? Not employing women, legally as opposed to unofficially, who fall in an age group likely to become mothers?

Ultimately whether it should be allowed or not is up to one's position on the free market and the principle of equality. Either way it should be applied equally though.

Well discrimination would be having all things equal between sexes as they aren't equal as shown by things like life expectancy.

I have no problem with this type of discrimination really as it is more based on the administration costs of implementing all this along with the when do you stop factor.

However, the state should ensure that it is a level playing field in all areas and not just areas where women are usually discriminated against which is the case in Ireland at the moment IMO when you look at things like the rights of a father and car insurance costs etc...

It seems if your a woman, the state believes it has to help you out but if your a man, screw you and that in itself is a sexist position. Of course behind the scenes, it mostly comes down to the lobby groups yet again that cause this and not malicious efforts by our politicians to discriminate against men given they are mostly men.

What we need is a government that doesn't pay so much attention to idiotic lobby groups.

The Corinthian

thebman wrote: »

What we need is a government that doesn't pay so much attention to idiotic lobby groups.

Or men's lobby groups, rather than complaining on Internet boards (and I point to myself as much as anyone else).

Question is, which is more likely to happen; politicians refusing to listen to lobby and pressure groups or men setting up our own? Both pretty unlikely as far as I can see.

dvpower

Sleepy wrote: »

Since PRSI is a form of insurance, and it's legal to discriminate based on gender in that area (see car insurance), shouldn't there be a higher rate of PRSI (or premiums) for women since they're a "higher risk" category for that insurance than men are?

Why focus on the gender category?

Shouldn't people in the lower socio economic groups pay more tax because they use more state services. Or people who live in cities pay more because crime is higher in cities. Or old people? Or anyone with a disability?

Sleepy

Are you saying that being a woman is a disability dvpower?

Why point it out? Because, to be frank, I'm sick of being discriminated against based on my sex in this country. As an unmarried father, I have next to no rights regarding access to or custody of my daughter should myself and my partner separate. As a father had no entitlement to any paid parental leave (and extremely limited rights to unpaid leave) at the time of my daughter's birth. It's legal to discriminate against me based on my gender for motor insurance. Far more media attention and funding are provided for the detection of and treatment of female-specific cancers than male ones. Moves are under-way to introduce quotas for the election of more women (a practice that might be referred to as "positive" discrimination but which in reality is just discrimination. Then last week, a suggestion to cut tax for women was attributed to the IMF and heavily reported in the media. This is just further discrimination. Please don't take this to be mysogeny on my part, it's an objection to misandrism, a practice which seems to be becoming socially acceptable in the western world in the last 20 years or so. One should correct imbalance by removing that imbalance not by tipping the scales in the other direction imho.

Rodin

Maternity leave should definitely be cut, and reduced for each subsequent child

jimmycrackcorm

Rodin wrote: »

Maternity leave should definitely be cut, and reduced for each subsequent child

Indulge us in explaining why?

There's nothing inherently wrong in maternity leave itself. The issues involved are primarily the associated costs and the fact that fathers are discriminated.

Even fathers being excluded would be OK (because women are the natrual primary care givers), were it not for the push in many areas for gender equality specifically for women.

CathleenN

Just out of curiosity: what men who find the Irish policy discriminating would think of the Scandinavian model where both parents get _compulsory_ parental leave when the child is born? In my opinion nothing better has been invented to combat inequality as evidenced by high level of female employment there...

Rodin

Its inherently unfair on those who choose not to have children. And is clearly abused by some
And why exactly should someone get six months PAID off work every time they have a kid? Justify that. I've no problem with unpaid maternity leave.

rumour

Rodin wrote: »

Its inherently unfair on those who choose not to have children. And is clearly abused by some
And why exactly should someone get six months PAID off work every time they have a kid? Justify that. I've no problem with unpaid maternity leave.

Obviously you've never had children to come up with that nonsense.

Its inherently unfair that those who fund raising children to provide future tax payers and citizens of the country are considered as some sort of irresponsible economic unit.

No children = no country.

The Corinthian

rumour wrote: »

Its inherently unfair that those who fund raising children to provide future tax payers and citizens of the country are considered as some sort of irresponsible economic unit.

Yes, but that does not imply that how it is structured now is either equatable or free from abuse - certainly the former - and many do think that it is in desperate need of reform.

A bit OT, but personally I would prefer to see maternity leave changed in two ways:

• Change it to a mixture for maternity and parental leave; the former to allow the woman to recover from the birth (a month to six weeks - longer if a doctor formally advises) and the latter leave to take care of the child, split between the parents, but to a certain degree non-transferable so that men are pushed into child care rather than dumping it onto the woman.
• That such leave be largely (completely if viable, but that's arguable) funded via a generous tax credit system; by this I mean that parents will effectively pay no PAYE for a certain period, before, during or after the leave - one parent might work, pay no PAYE while the other is at home, for example. Naturally, one would need to work out the various parenting models and cash flow scenarios to make this work.

And naturally, a reform of how child care is funded is essential, because a baby does not magically grow to adulthood during maternity leave and as things stand it is often more viable for one parent (or a single parent) to give up work altogether due to the cost of child care, which gives rise to an appalling culture of dependency in Ireland.

All of the above really is meant to encourage a more equal form of child care and financial provision, moving away from the traditional model which is often forced upon couples who would prefer to avoid it but cannot due to the financial realities of a country that still believes a woman's place is in the home.

Sorry, I've probably thrown the thread completely OT.

Popel

dvpower wrote: »

Why focus on the gender category?

Shouldn't people in the lower socio economic groups pay more tax because they use more state services. Or people who live in cities pay more because crime is higher in cities. Or old people? Or anyone with a disability?

I think this post has been a bit overlooked. The gender divide is just one of many constructions that dividie society. Splitting society into two in this way has one side recieving slightly more state money than the other side. There are other ways to split society in two though, how about we find some statistics on red haired people Vs non red haired people: I´m sure a statistical difference in state-funded requitements could be found there through... I don´t know, maybe skin cancer costs due to having such fair skin.

Another way of splitting society in two? Disabled people, non disabled people, who needs more state money? should they pay more PRSI?

We could split society into two parts any which way and find statistics for why one should pay more PRSI than the other based on potentially more costs. So why is the focus on the men/women divide? It´s just another too-basic, archaic way of creating more inequality, and founding "logic" on illogical divisions.

ei.sdraob

Mad Benny wrote: »

We needs lots of kids in the workforce when those of us that are 35+ retire. :cool:

I don't buy this we need to make babies in order for them to pay for our pensions argument. Its kinda perverse every time its brought up :rolleyes:
If you use the same argument then it makes more sense to attract highly skilled people into the country for jobs here and have them pay taxes, since we benefit from someone else paying for their education.

these babies when they grow up:
1. they could emigrate (due to no jobs) in time taking with them expensive education investment
2. they could decide to stay on dole, due to generous welfare and little incentives to take low paid jobs
3. jobs are becoming more and more automated hence requiring less people


Why do we need a country with more and more people in it anyways?
anyways its too late to worry about pensions, that piggy bank is being looted right now, if you are in your 30s now forget about ever getting a state pension by time you get to pension age (whatever that be!)

irishh_bob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I don't buy this we need to make babies in order for them to pay for our pensions argument. Its kinda perverse every time its brought up :rolleyes:
If you use the same argument then it makes more sense to attract highly skilled people into the country for jobs here and have them pay taxes, since we benefit from someone else paying for their education.

these babies when they grow up:
1. they could emigrate (due to no jobs) in time taking with them expensive education investment
2. they could decide to stay on dole, due to generous welfare and little incentives to take low paid jobs
3. jobs are becoming more and more automated hence requiring less people


Why do we need a country with more and more people in it anyways?
anyways its too late to worry about pensions, that piggy bank is being looted right now, if you are in your 30s now forget about ever getting a state pension by time you get to pension age (whatever that be!)

ageism is rampant in ireland , the old are spoled beyond belief and to hell ( or the boat ) with the young

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I don't buy this we need to make babies in order for them to pay for our pensions argument.

The vast bulk of our current state pension costs are currently funded by younger generations of workers, so you can buy the arguement if you like, but it remains to be largely fact (apart from your examples).
Any since we are just about to spend the NPRF, it is likely to remain fact for the foreseeable.

The Corinthian

dvpower wrote: »

The vast bulk of our current state pension costs are currently funded by younger generations of workers, so you can buy the arguement if you like, but it remains to be largely fact (apart from your examples).

I think the word current is important here though, because with or without a stable, let alone growing, population, state pensions are they currently exist are soon to become a thing of the past.

Anyone reaching adulthood today is, to begin with, will be facing a pensionable age of 75. Even those of us well on the way will likely have to work an additional five years more than our parents. State pensions are already, and have been for a while, unsustainable, and the last decade most European governments have been incentivizing citizens to invest in private pensions. Next step will be to make it obligatory to have a private pensions, and that's when the state pension will start getting reduced or even phased out. Expect the something similar to happen with health care.

Those between 10 and 50 years of age today are the one's who will be paying for the pensions of those older than them, not anyone born tomorrow. Of course, the exception to that will be those who will become the pension of their actual parents, which is another can of worms.

In addition, ei.sdraob did make a valid point in that there is no reason to believe, even were the situation to remain the same with regard to pensions, that those born today will ever pay a penny of tax to them anyway. So while it is necessary for the continuation of the species, some of the claims of selfless sacrifice for the greater good do sound like porkies to me.

dvpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think the word current is important here though, because with or without a stable, let alone growing, population, state pensions are they currently exist are soon to become a thing of the past.

I agree that state pensions are going to become less and less sustainable, but this is because of an ageing population rather than an unwillingness to fund pensions. I'd predict that as a % of GDP, we will be paying more, not less on state pensions.

Even in the last month look what happened:
1. No appetite to make an actual cut to state pension rates.
2. Private pension provision to be disincentivised by lowering the tax relief.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In addition, ei.sdraob did make a valid point in that there is no reason to believe, even were the situation to remain the same with regard to pensions, that those born today will ever pay a penny of tax to them anyway.

Valid on a micro level but not on a macro one.

The Corinthian

dvpower wrote: »

I agree that state pensions are going to become less and less sustainable, but this is because of an ageing population rather than an unwillingness to fund pensions. I'd predict that as a % of GDP, we will be paying more, not less on state pensions.

Yes and no, because the model for state pensions requires a sustained population increase that far outstrips the replacement rate. In short, it's actually a bit of a Ponzi scheme.

Now if we go back to making contraception illegal again, we might be able to sustain it into the 22nd century.

Valid on a micro level but not on a macro one.

Macro is an aggregate of micro though

My main point in relation to what ei.sdraob wrote is that it is simplistic to the point of dishonest to claim that the next generation will pay for the previous, even ignoring the likely phase out of state pensions. It is true to a great extent, with limits, but has also become an overused justification for having children (or getting others to pay for them).

dvpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

Macro is an aggregate of micro though

Maybe I should say that there will be individuals who will never contribute to the taxbase, but, in general, today's children will be tomorrow's taxpayers.

The Corinthian wrote: »

My main point in relation to what ei.sdraob wrote is that it is simplistic to the point of dishonest to claim that the next generation will pay for the previous, even ignoring the likely phase out of state pensions. It is true to a great extent, with limits, but has also become an overused justification for having children (or getting others to pay for them).

True enough.
But its also the case that some people see children as the sole responsibility of their parents and somehow not part of general society, and not entitled to avail of state supports until they reach adulthood (until they reach pension age and then become fully the responsibility of the state and no longer responsible for themselves).

Mad Benny

Mad Benny wrote: »

I can't argue with any of your responses Sleepy. If you agree that parental leave should be optional for either parent then it's possible for a woman to work through her pregnancy and then go straight back to work after the baby is born while the father takes leave. Its fair in my mind that women should benefit by our taxation or social welfare system for the contribution that they have made. It's not an easy job being pregnant!

Women need to physically recuperate for a while, but after that I'm with you...

dvpower

Sleepy wrote: »

Are you saying that being a woman is a disability dvpower?

Why point it out? Because, to be frank, I'm sick of being discriminated against based on my sex in this country....

On the contrary. I was attempting to point out that discriminating on gender grounds is akin to discriminating on any other ground that you want to make up (like age, socio economic group, disability etc...).

I should have included the sarcasm emoticon.

Nasty_Girl

But if women have less income we won't have as much money to spend on pink hair straighteners and clothes and shoes and make up...