The math’s done. The verdict’s in. Tariffs are guilty as charged.

On Thursday, the Penn Wharton Budget Model released its estimates for the Trump tariffs as planned on April 8, which is to say prior to the “pause” announced the following day.

As a reminder, PWBM is non-partisan and, importantly, non-normative. They don’t make policy recommendations. Their work’s apolitical and it’s not prescriptive. It’s just math.

What does that math show vis-à-vis Trump’s tariff plan?

The “good” news is, the tariffs would raise some revenue, where “some” means anywhere between $4 and $5 trillion over a decade. That could — but, let’s face it, probably wouldn’t — be used to pay down public debt and, if you’re a fan of “crowding out” theory, encourage private investment.

That’s where the good news stops. The rest of the numbers — and the picture they paint — are disastrous, although being “non-normative,” PWBM didn’t quite put it that way.

By 2030, in a scenario where households are forced to shoulder 100% of the tariff costs, consumption’s almost 5% lower. As imports fall, other countries have fewer dollars to recycle, leading to less demand for US Treasurys, which in turn compels US citizens to underwrite more of America’s debt issuance. That, in turn, leaves less money for private investment.

Between that and retrenchment tied to acute uncertainty, America’s capital stock contracts by more than 2% by 2030 and by almost 15% in 2054. “Less capital reduces worker productivity, translating into lower wages and causing households to work slightly less,” the analysis said, adding that by 2054, wages will be almost 7% lower, hours worked will decline and GDP would drop by nearly 8%.

For everyday people — which in this case means a typical middle-class family — the lifetime losses associated with Trump’s tariff plan as announced on “Liberation Day” would be almost $60,000. The numbers aren’t much better when you run the model such that only 75% of the tariff costs are borne by consumers.

Insult to injury for the GOP: According to the PWBM model, the tariffs would raise the same amount of revenue as hiking corporate taxes from 21% to 36%, but the hit to GDP and wages would be twice as dramatic, and to quote directly from the study again, “all households, regardless of age or income, would be worse off.”

In other words, it’d be far — far — preferable, and on every metric that matters across all demographic cohorts, to raise corporate taxes by 15ppt than it would be to move ahead with Trump’s tariff plan.