Republican State Senator (Wisconsin) says having lots of money gives your kids "less values".

[Scuba]

Ooops, he only meant it in regards to the children of divorced millionaires, not those who remain married!!!

http://bloggingblue.com/2014/01/something-overlooked-in-the-kleefisch-child-support-bill/

Something Overlooked In the Kleefisch Child Support Bill

Yeah, I am sure you are all tired of the brou ha ha surrounding the Child Support Bill introduced and withdrawn by State Representative Joel Kleefisch. As Zach published earlier, Rep. Kleefisch received help in preparing the bill from wealthy campaign contributor Michael Eisenga. I am not going to recount all of that…but I did find it interesting that the media was all fired up over the ghost writing but not necessarily the cap on earnings (at $150,000 to be exact) that could be considered in family court when child support is being determined.

And in support of that limitation, we have this quote from State Representative Tom Larson:

Larson said the public isn’t served by a system that allows children to receive such a large sum in support payments.

“There’s some value in having some hardship with life,” Larson said. “Even if I were a rich person, I probably would struggle a little bit to make sure my kids earned what they get. What’s the purpose of this money going to child support if it’s only going to create a child with maybe less values.”

...

So if we think having a lot of household income is creating the wrong values in our children…then why aren’t we taxing the absolute living hell out of rich parents until we reduce them to the per capita income for the State of Wisconsin? That’ll show ‘em! I mean after all: spare the rod, spoil the child?

That would be "fewer values" Tom, but I'm sure schoolin' was never your strong suit.

[PowerToThePeople]

1. then why aren’t we taxing the absolute living hell out of rich parents

This is the answer to all of the country's woes.

Thank you Tom Larson.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Wonder what he thinks about the 'death tax'? Wouldn't want all that money

going to the 'kids' and ruining their 'values', would he?

[MisterP]

3. yeah--the GOPers and right-liberts always say "we want equality of opportunity, you want equality of

outcome"--but they never attack the whole concept of inheritance!

[jmowreader]

4. Equality of opportunity requires wealth redistribution

The RW claims all you need to "make it" in America is to get a good education and start your own business. Both those require money - and the WORFs in this society (WithOut Rich Family and friends) can't get enough of it to really make a go of it.

So, obviously, if you want real equality of opportunity rather than lip service, you will simply have to tax the living shit out of the rich and pass it down to people with the intelligence to make it work for them.

[DemocraticWing]

5. Tea Party Logic is only half-formed.

In a way, some of these are people who have actually realized America is messed up, but they lack whatever (intelligence? empathy? reason?) is needed to form political beliefs based on actually fixing that. Let me elaborate for a second:

On the Left, we all know that corporations are in bed with both political parties and every level of government. We want to change this badly, and our struggles against income inequality are in many ways based on that struggle to dismantle the aristocracy. These teabaggers have also figured out that government has been bought off by corporations, but they have extremely misguided solutions to these problems. Rather than reform the political and economic systems to fix it, they actually think that killing the government would free ordinary people from the tyranny of aristocratic control.

They are, of course, incorrect and somewhat delusional. But it's fascinating how many of these people (in contrast with old-style Republicans who just openly care about big business) could have been liberals had something gone right in their political development.