IN this early postwar period public attention is focussing more and more upon the domestic economy. Whether or not we are to pass through a temporary business recession in the near future, the experiences of the thirties linger in the public mind. Already, as though anticipating an inevitable collapse of equal severity to the late depression, pressure groups are demanding that the government do something to assure economic stability and to guarantee satisfactory employment and earnings for all gainfully employed persons. In the past, a similar demand led to the adoption, in 1935, of the Social Security Act which provided for Old-Age and Survivors' Insurance and a system of State Unemployment Compensation. In 1939, the original Social Security Act was amended and expanded. The Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill introduced originally on June 3, 1943, was revised and reintroduced by the same authors on May 24, 1945. It is this revised bill which may be regarded as representing the culmination of the present Administration's social security philosophy, and for that reason is used as the basis of this study.' The Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill proposes to bring old-age and survivors' insurance, health insurance, maternity benefits, unemployment compensation, and temporary and permanent disability benefits to all groups, industrial, professional, and agricultural, and to employees and employers alike. All farmers, whether they be farm owners, operators, tenants, or farm workers, would be included. It is notable that the bill acknowledges no special differences between agriculture and industry, or between the farm owner and the operator, or between the tenant farmer or sharecropper, on the one hand, and the industrial worker, on the other. Yet it takes no special knowledge of social security to see that the farmer has been in quite a different position with reference to medical and hospital services than the city dweller, and to see that the collection of social security taxes is applied far more easily to industrial payrolls than to farm bookkeeping. These questions will be taken up in another study. In this survey we are concerned exclusively with the tax burden entailed in the extension of social security to the farmer. Hitherto very little specific attention has been given to the farmer's position in the future social security picture, and none at all to the financial burden of such an enlarged program and to the question of whether the cost would be in proportion to the social and economic advantages promised.