> It's unlikely the panty gender gap is intentionally discriminatory. It's not clear exactly why women's undergarments are taxed at a higher rate. "The patterns

> It's unlikely the panty gender gap is intentionally discriminatory. It's not clear exactly why women's undergarments are taxed at a higher rate. "The patterns seem to date back to lobbying from earlier eras," Rampell writes. This article is intentionally being dense. Tariff schedules are completely arbitrary and entirely set by industry lobbying. Historically, the market for women's underwear was different (different stores, different manufacturers, different consumer preferences). So at some point there was a domestic women's underwear industry that intentionally sought higher tariffs on their own product.