We believe that a tax system designed to penalize the small group of wealthy individuals for the benefit of the others injures all groups by diminishing the incentive to productive effort, thereby reducing the total output available for distribution, which really constitutes the national income. … We oppose this Federal tax program on the ground that high estate and inheritance taxes tend to dissipate the aggregations of wealth on which industry depends for its capital and on which the government depends for a substantial part of its revenue under the present income taxes.
There is no such thing, biologically, socially or economically, as absolute security; but the greatest security comes from within the individual rather than from without and the Thames unduly to ensure, will so weaken the individual and cannot adapt circumstances and environment to himself, or himself to his surroundings.
If the provisions of the bill now pending should be adopted, the country should realize that within a decade there will be a tax burden amounting to as much as $1 billion.
This bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.
The lash of the dictator will be felt and 25 million free Americans will for the first time submit themselves to a finger print test.
[Social Security is] the end of democracy.
So far as I know, we as a people have not reached any decision to abandon our accustomed type of life; up to date we have looked upon the officers of government not as masters but as servants of the people, and we have looked upon ourselves, the people, as master of our destiny. While, as I say, we have not reached any decision to abandon this philosophy, it seems to me that we are acting in many respects as if we had. ... If we really are in favor of changing our basic economic order, we must be prepared to abandon our present form of government along with it; for if we expect government to do our thinking planning and spending for us, we must be prepared to remove from government the necessity of submitting itself to frequent popular election. Otherwise, we shall have a planned economy, the plan of which changes whenever an election campaign approaches.
What is more, I do not believe that the home-owning family, with its back against the wall, fighting for the protection of its children, fighting for a way to live in some other way than on Mr. Hopkins’ relief rolls is going to jeopardize the family shelter for any such purpose. I think it is nothing short of a crime to use the money of the taxpayers to incite people to go into debts they do not know how they are going to meet and by which they are going further to jeopardize the family shelter.
I do not see that it is the function of Congress to tell me whether I shall take a straight loan or whether I shall take an amortized loan. It does not make any difference to me whether you tell it to me in blunt terms through officials here in Washington, or whether you so rig the financial market that I must steer the course that you lay out for me. I do not think that we ought to expect such legislation from legislators who represent a party that stands for initiative, for the rights of the States, and the rights of the community. I do not think we are going to get it from them.
I am speaking first because I am a home owner, and every member of my family has been a home owner, and my home is not a failure. I say that if this bill goes through that my home will be a failure, and every other home built in America on materials that have been used for 1,500 years, and I say that the United States should not be an experimental agency for those who wish to have them exploit scientific houses. I say further that the American home can be protected by Congress, and Congress only, and if this Government is to survive as a democracy, for God’s sake, kill this bill.
