Trump’s Tariff Gamble Risks Crushing U.S. Middle Class | Image Source: budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 10, 2025 – In a movement that triggered economic upheavals through world markets, President Donald Trump’s Executive Decree of April 2025 lowered a minimum rate of 10 percent on all U.S. imports – and higher rates up to 50 percent in 57 selected countries – relaunched discussions on the costs, benefits and long-term implications of protectionism in an interconnected global economy. As the administration reverses tariffs to revitalize the U.S. manufacturing industry and reduce federal debt, experts and economic institutions such as the Penn Wharton (PWBM) budget model are concerned about the real impact of these policies on U.S. homes, businesses and international credibility.
The numbers behind the promise
At first glance, income figures seem promising. The PWBM estimates that over the next 10 years, new tariffs could generate revenues of $5.2 billion, which, if properly used, could reduce federal debt and theoretically stimulate private investment. In the longer term, this figure reached $16.4 billion in 2054. But the profits stop there.
Considering the wider economic effects, the projection of pink incomes is beginning to lose its brightness. According to the same analysis, tariffs would cause GDP to fall by about 8% and wages to fall by 7% in 2054. In personal terms, a typical middle-income household loses about $58,000 throughout its life cycle due to slower wage growth, higher consumer prices and lower employment opportunities.
How are rates compared to corporate tax increases?
This is a fair question that policy makers have to face: Would the increase in corporate taxes have the same economic burden?
Surprisingly, the answer is no. PWBM considers that the increase in corporate income tax from 21% to 36% – a movement often rejected as an economic punitive – would only cause half of GDP and the fall in wages imposed by the Trump tariff plan. In a face-to-face comparison, tariffs appear to be the most economically damaging route, even if they increase similar income levels.
This revelation undermines a long-standing political narrative that considers tariffs as a more populist alternative to the taxation of large corporations. As a result, tariffs are more harmful to all income levels and age groups, including middle-class voters seeking protection.
Who pays the price? All of them.
There is no escape. PWBM modeling explores different scenarios based on who absorbs the burden – consumers, businesses or both. And the result is the same: everyone loses.
In the scenario where consumers bear the total cost, consumption fell by more than 5% in 2054, capital fell by almost 15% and wages decreased by 6.5%. In a supposedly more balanced model, where the load is evenly distributed, the results are even more serious. The economy is further reduced, debt relief is less and investment collapses faster.
The data reveal an uncomfortable truth: no matter how you kill the cake, siphon pays money from the hands of workers, businesses and investors. Even at retirement and birth – represented in PWBM’s dynamic distribution model – face significant loss of life.
Are rates just another tax?
Yeah, but worse. Tariffs are a hidden tax, often more regressive than explicit taxes on income or capital. Unlike the rich scale of income tax, tariffs are based on the cost of goods. Everyone pays more at the store, regardless of income. And while corporate taxes can, in theory, be absorbed by profit margins or deferred investments, tariffs cause immediate pain to consumers and disrupt the supply chains on which businesses depend.
As PWBM indicated, the loss of life in middle-income households (approximately $58,000) is twice as large as the loss of life in middle-income households as a result of an increase in corporate tax that generates the same government income. Tariffs are not a more flexible solution. They are a blunt instrument, disproportionately affecting the least able to absorb the coup.
Collateral damage: capital flows, credibility and chaos
According to the economic model of the University of Pennsylvania PWBM, pain does not stop in food bills or stagnating wages. Tariffs also stop capital flows. As foreign countries import less U.S. goods, they buy fewer U.S. assets, including government bonds. This leaves a financing gap that the domestic market must fill, forcing US households to choose between saving for retirement or increasing national debt.
And there is a less quantifiable but equally harmful consequence: political uncertainty. The Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (EPI) has doubled since January 2025, reaching its highest level since the early days of the VOCID-19 pandemic. Business doesn’t invest when they don’t know the rules tomorrow. Consumers delay large purchases. Capital formation is decreasing. The economy, like a car stuck on the road, jumps.
Has this happened before? Yes, and he was wrong
The last time the United States saw tariff levels like this one was under the Smooth-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The result? A world trade war that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. Although history does not repeat, it certainly rhymes. Once again, foreign governments recuse themselves and global partnerships are weakening. Trade negotiations between the EU, China, Japan, South Korea and other countries are already progressing without US participation.
According to The Economist reports, even Trump’s sudden 90-day suspension of some of the most extreme rates could not calm the nerves. The S; P 500 clamp bounces 9.5 percent, the fastest daily growth in 17 years, but investor confidence remains agitated. Safe Shelters like the USA Treasury bonds, once the world’s gold standard, see unusual volatility – a sign that global confidence in US fiscal stability is absent.
What are the legal grounds? And they sound?
President Trump uses the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify his actions, claiming that the persistence of the trade deficit is a national emergency. However, experts from all political circles argue that this is a dramatic increase. The law was designed to respond to real emergencies, not economic strategies. According to the Brennan Justice Centre, no president has used this law to justify peace rates. This measure could be challenged before the courts, and Congress could possibly intervene to reaffirm its constitutional authority in tax matters.
“Someone in the federal government will have to prove that these laws… are not empty checks for an individual to destroy billions of dollars of wealth,” said trade policy analyst Scott Lincigo.
Common reader questions
Q: Will tariffs really help American manufacturing?
A: Not immediately. Although tariffs may encourage long-term resupply, companies cannot build factories at night. In the short term, they are likely to reduce production, reduce jobs or raise costs for consumers.
Q: Who benefits most from the tariffs?
A: It is difficult to find a clear winner. Some domestic industries may gain a small margin, but in general households, particularly middle-income households and low-income households, are the most affected.
Q: Can the government use the tariff revenue to reduce debt?
A: Yes, and this is one of the few features redeemed from the regime. Tariffs could reduce the federal debt by about 6% by 2054. But this has a high economic cost, including lower wages and GDP.
Q: Are tariffs better than corporate taxes?
A: No. Although both increase income, tariffs cause greater economic damage. Corporate taxes are more transparent and objective wealth more directly.
Q: Is the U.S. losing credibility on the global stage?
A: Yes. Rapid and unpredictable political changes erode confidence. Other countries form trade alliances without the United States, thereby reducing the United States’ influence on world trade.
There’s a disturbing irony in this. Trump’s tariffs were launched to make America stronger and more autonomous. Instead, they make it more isolated, economically vulnerable and untrustworthy worldwide. As supply chains revolve around America rather than through it, there is growing concern that even the future administration is unable to repair the damage.
“It will be a painful process,” said economist Scott Lincicome. “Children will get out of business, workers will lose their jobs, and the world will be poorer for him. But he can continue without us.”
And perhaps this is the greatest tragedy of all, not only lost jobs or cutting wages, but decades of goodwill and confidence that have been wasted in a few weeks.
About The Author
