The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
January 31, 19 SL Marriner S. Eccles, Member, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D. C. Sir: With a mixture of horror and fear I have been listening to and reading your various suggestions in regard to taxes. In the beginning, the cost of living should be controlled - i t should definitely be kept within the range of the American wage earner, who has to feed a family, said family having become accustomed to bread, butter, eggs, and an occasional piece of steak. The family has also grown outright bashful about being seen outside the house barefoot (above the age of ten or so) and unclad from the knees to the chin. I f there is nothing that you can do to keep the above-mentioned habits from becoming too expensive to buy on an average wage, then presto! let us tax the wa^e earner again, you suggest! Look - things are tough enough without any more of the particular kind of help you're trying to foist off upon us. Leave o f f , Mr. Eccles! In your particular zeal, have you found a way to tax that 70% exemption allowed to the o i l interest, or a way to tax the various insurance companies, who are certainly losing no money fast, or a way to tax business institutions which are in direct competition with American business but which go untaxed because they are the property of churches or schools? As I see i t - and as most of us do - the churches are surely entitled to a certain amount of tax freedom, but only insofar as they attend to church affairs, and not when they enter into the commercii fields. And this is likewise true of schools, which we are taxed f u l l well to support! Why don't you andyour l i t t l e family - this is based upon the assumption that you support them yourself - try to live on the $65. weekly average -wage - and try this in one of the more crowded centers where defense work i s going on - and pay for l i t t l e shoes and l i t t l e tonsils and l i t t l e and big teeth being pulled and repaired, and l i t t l e shelters over l i t t l e heads, and a l l of this without the very fine financial backing of a wealthy relative or two? Believe me, Mr. Eccles, i t is my sincere conviction that you and yours would be - even as we are - against another increase in our taxes. Have you heard the prevalent rumor that we are being quickly and painfully taxed into Socialism? Do you believe that this is true? Are you doing i t intentionally, or is i t only a by-product? Please - think this over - not from a viewpoint of anything at a l l excetft living in this country* Yours very truly, Bemice C. Goodwin Taxpayer, and good! BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM WASHINGTON February 13, 1951 Miss Bernice C. Goodwin Torrance, California Dear Miss Goodwin: Thank you for your letter of January 31* 1951 Certainly as you point out higher taxes mean fewer shoes, less clothes and a general reduced standard of l i v i n g . However, we must be careful to keep i n mind that i t is expenditures for war that cause the reduced standard of l i v i n g and not the taxes. I f higher taxes were not collected a greater portion of the reduced standard of l i v i n g would arise from higher prices. The expanded war expenditures are either going to be financed through higher taxes or expanded i n f l a t i o n . In my opinion inflation is much more harmful to the family l i v i n g on |65 a week than higher taxes collected largely with regard to the a b i l i t y to pay. Sincerely yours, P.S. I am enclosing a copy of my statement which might give you a l i t t l e different understanding of my views than your letter would indicate you have. M.S.E /
@FedFRASER