It [this bill] would increase unemployment by aggravating the very conditions which it is attempting to correct, by crippling the agencies which furnish opportunities for employment, by discouraging efforts to relieve unemployment, and by placing a premium on idleness.
…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.
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.
It would result in further and unnecessary intrusion of the Government into the domain of private enterprise, thus aggravating the hardships which have already been caused industry by extensive government regulations, restrictions, and competition.
It would undermine the fabric of our economic and social life by destroying initiative, discouraging thrift, and stifling individual responsibility.
…to impose this burden at this time, when industry is just struggling to get on its feet, is going to still further retard the very recovery which is necessary to create these reserves. That is the basis of our opposition to these provisions.
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.
