Employers pay men, not machines. Can there be any question but that this and similar legislation will drive industry faster and faster toward mechanization? Can there be any question but that its normal tendency will be to depress wages, since the higher the total pay roll, the greater the taxes? Can there be any question but that it will retard reemployment of men and intensify the development of machinery and its substitution for men?
The imposition on industry at this time of the tax burden contemplated by this measure would render business recovery absolutely hopeless. Manufacturing industry is now engaged in a desperate struggle in an effort to continue operations and provide jobs. Most industries have been operating at a loss for several years. Industry is not prepared at this time to accept the added burden as contemplated by this bill.
We have just come from another hearing, of the Wagner Labor Board. Now, if you keep piling these things upon industry, where are the reserves going to come from to protect these things? You are going to stop the very recovery necessary to produce this reserve.
There is probably no greater need at the present time than for opportunity of employment. Through a long period in our country both law and public opinion reflected the universal approval and the good will felt toward those capable of giving employment to men and women who needed jobs. Yet, the imposition of this tax would be a complete reversal of that attitude. It would indicate either that employment is held undesirable and should be discouraged, or else it could properly be considered as an attempt to penalize unemployment.
…finally, it is paternalistic and incompatible with our fundamental conception of democracy.
…it still is true that the young people of today in this country look to the people who have succeeded in spite of every handicap such as that, as their inspiration for doing things. I think we do not want to kill off that spirit of individualism. I use the term ‘individualism’; I know it is sneered at a lot, but I know if is still a respectable term and I think we ought to cultivate it instead of sneering at it.
…this is no time to put additional burdens on employers and employees and State administrations. Recent legislation has created plenty of burdens without adding the one. It is an extremely dangerous time to discuss raising labor costs in the sense of labor costs per unit.
The proposed pay-roll tax is not only a sales tax, but, in addition, is a production tax, a processing tax, and a distribution tax. It has all the vices and none of the virtues of a sales tax. It is selective as to the classes of business against which it is to be assessed, and hence, is discriminatory. It is cumulative; it applies over and over again on every operation from the production of raw materials to and including the final sale of a product to the ultimate consumer…The pay-roll tax is a hidden tax and each successive purchaser of a commodity pays the tax if it can be passed on under the circumstances of the particular transaction.
…in regard to the ultimate consequence of this legislation, that is leaving aside the effect that might be produced this year or next year, on pay rolls, we wish to point out the added incentive it creates for the more rapid introduction of labor-saving machinery for the definite purpose of reducing the total taxable pay roll and thus add to the unemployment....Further there is always a maximum labor cost that any industry can meet and there will be a definite increased tendency for employers to consider this tax as a part of the wages of their employees and keep the direct wage paid as low as possible to reduce such wage by the size of the tax itself; I am indicating that only as a natural business tendency.
This bill will cause further migration from the farm areas to the industrial areas and will invite the transfer of workers from the class of those not gainfully employed in order to share in the unemployment benefits…Unemployment insurance, which in many instances places a premium on indolence, would unquestionably defeat this proposed plan of the administration to place workers in the areas of lower living costs and keep them gainfully employed.
