Influence of the ruling class

[Seanp]

What would make someone to be part of the ruling class?

I'd describe with the following statements:
- Above authority as their wealth influence masses and the lawmaking forces are under their control (law, military)
- Own right to control culture and education. It's been happening in every century that the church, monopoly owners, investors had rights to influence media though power and of course money.
- Passive income through investments and taxes. - Notice having passive income won't make anyone to be part of the controlling power but the ability to taxes the masses is a way of control that can't be done by just the few of the actual controllers of the economical hierarchy.
Who is typically someone part of the ruling class?
- Politicians?
Politicians just like the Church were part of the authority to control thoughts and basic laws of the citizens, or they supposed to convince citizens that their control is the most influential and other substances of the system have little to no to say when it comes to lawmaking and taxing.
My own view is that politicians are part of the ruling class but not belong to the lawmaking and their task is to give a sort of "freedom feeling" for the majority that their votes and intentions are important. In a less complex way politicians are a sort of medicine to cure the majority's little man syndrome.
In reality politicians may be like dealers who make a direct connection between the ruling class and the masses as they give the directions to political elite and influence their actions.
To understand it we have to understand each political parties have limited assets and the assets are provided by who?
In order to have a successful political party for the ability of campaign including advertisement though TV they need investors who usually belong the a certain power and hold a significant role.

Wealth distribution:

When it comes to taxing..

Do the wealthy pay lower taxes than the middle class?


A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week.
The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.


Washington state had the most regressive state tax system, taxing the poorest residents at 16.8 percent while taxing the top 1 percent at only 2.4 percent, the study said. Florida ranked number two, with the poor paying 12.9 percent of their income to taxes, while the top 1 percent pay 1.9 percent. Texas ranked third, with the bottom playing 12.5 percent and the top 1 percent paying 2.9 percent. The main reason: None of those states have personal income taxes, which tend to be progressive.
California is the most progressive state, with the poorest residents paying 10.5 percent and the top 1 paying 8.7 percent. (You can check your own state here.) Among the other most progressive states are Delaware, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon and Vermont, which all have progressive state income taxes.

for more information about the study: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/15/do-the-wealthy-pay-lower-taxes-than-the-middle-class.html

Handbook of Human ownership

https://board.freedomainradio.com/p...ownership_a_manual_for_new_t ax_farmers.html

"People think that ethics were invented to make people good, but that's like saying that chastity belts were invented to spread STDs. No, no - ethics were invented to bind the minds of the slaves, and to create the only true shackles we rulers need: guilt, self-attack and a fear of the tyranny of ethics. Whoever teaches ethics rules the herd, because everyone is afraid of bad opinions, mostly from themselves. If you do it right, no judgment will be as evil or endless as the one coming from the mirror.

This is all fairly straightforward - however, the ethics required to control slaves requires the creation of a paradise after death that they can look forward to, if only they continue to obey their masters. This harvests the muscles of the slaves, but not their minds, which remain depressed and alienated and otherworldly and, well, economically fairly useless. Basically, you're saying "Hey, let's double down, shall we? I'll trade you pretty much everything in this life for everything in the afterlife, mmmkay?" It really only takes a moment's thought to realize that anyone making that deal has no belief in the afterlife - I mean, look at the gold palaces of the Pope, for heaven's sake! - but frankly, a moment's thought appears to be a moment too long for most people."

The feudal approach improved on the direct slave-owning model by granting the human livestock ("serfs") nominal ownership over land, while taking a portion of their productivity through taxes, military conscription, user fees for grinding grain and so on. So instead of owning folks directly, we just let them sweat themselves into puddles on their little ancestral plots, then took whatever we wanted from the proceeds -- all the while telling them, of course, that God Himself appointed us as masters over them, and that their highest virtue was meek subservience to their anointed masters, blah blah. Again, you might be thinking that, historically, God seems to have had a very soft spot for the most violent, entitled and warlike of His flock - and if meek submission was a virtue, why was it not practiced by the rulers, and so on, but don't worry; you need to just put these entirely natural thoughts right out of your head, because once the people become enslaved, basic reasoning just short-circuits in their tiny minds, so that they do not see the cramped horrors of their little lives.

Anyway, the evolution of medieval serfdom split society into four basic groups:

1. The ruling class (aristocracy);

2. The church (propaganda);

3. The army (enforcement) - and;

4. The serfs (livestock).

 

[LeBrok]

Sniff, sniff, smells like conspiracy theory here. Money influence and lobbying is one thing, Classes controlling military and law quite another, especially when we're talking about modern concept as US. You took archaic social structure of the past and you want to extrapolate it on a modern country. I don't know why, perhaps it fits controlling part of your conspiracy theory.
If you really want to see if it fits. Try explaining by it why Obama and then Trump were elected for most powerful position in world's history.

To understand and explain the world is a great thing, but I don't think you have this gift. Sorry.

 

[Seanp]

Sniff, sniff, smells like conspiracy theory here. Money influence and lobbying is one thing, Classes controlling military and law quite another, especially when we're talking about modern concept as US. You took archaic social structure of the past and you want to extrapolate it on a modern country. I don't know why, perhaps it fits controlling part of your conspiracy theory.
If you really want to see if it fits. Try explaining by it why Obama and then Trump were elected for most powerful position in world's history.

To understand and explain the world is a great thing, but I don't think you have this gift. Sorry.

I invested my time to learn about this subject, i don't claim that there's a conspiracy about it, even if you read books by academics about the process of economy and influences on certain groups it's clear that most what i wrote seems correct.
There's no conspiracy about the wealthy class and it's influence on public. We know that money what motivates people and money means control when it comes to making laws.
We have to be politically correct and avoid to say there's a few people in the world who have no other interest than to keep us controlled in order to keep their control. If someone
knows humans psychology he knows certain personality types have a very needy interest to keep control over others and usually these people who form control over the society.

I never listened conspiracy theorists like +David Icke" and i highly avoid to turn this subject about something invisible when it's a clear and evident even according to Academical historians as Carroll Quigley.

"If you really want to see if it fits. Try explaining by it why Obama and then Trump were elected for most powerful position in world's history."

Excuse me, according to who? People have different opinions about powerful men and surely they fit for certain high standards when it comes to power and influence, but to say a politician can be an ultimate controller of a society even if we know that Obama would never win an US election if he wouldn't support Wall Street and had no close relations with powerful businessmen.
According to someone Michael Jordan is the most powerful man, i can't agree or disagree because this has different aspect and he surely had more influence on the youth than George W. Bush.

 

[LeBrok]

I invested my time to learn about this subject, i don't claim that there's a conspiracy about it, even if you read books by academics about the process of economy and influences on certain groups it's clear that most what i wrote seems correct.
There's no conspiracy about the wealthy class and it's influence on public. We know that money what motivates people and money means control when it comes to making laws.
We have to be politically correct and avoid to say there's a few people in the world who have no other interest than to keep us controlled in order to keep their control. If someone
knows humans psychology he knows certain personality types have a very needy interest to keep control over others and usually these people who form control over the society.

Here is a problem with this broad sweeping hypothesis of population being controlled in modern world. There are rich and influential liberals, republicans, conservatives of many sorts, also rich religious people as well as atheists. They all have different interests, visions and ideology. It is far away scenario from anything in shape of unified elite controlling population. In such varied environment control is impossible. Influence on some issues at certain times yes, but no control.

I never listened conspiracy theorists like +David Icke" and i highly avoid to turn this subject about something invisible when it's a clear and evident even according to Academical historians as Carroll Quigley.

Exactly sounds like a conspiracy theory, and crap. Financiers want to injure all other economic groups?! Lol. Since when poor people are good for business and growth of capital? Poor people don't have money and are not good for business. It is nonsense saying that capitalists want other "classes" to be poor. If it happens in the future that you have your own business, you will notice immediately, that you make best profit in times of prosperity, when people have jobs and economy is booming.

If you really want to see if it fits. Try explaining by it why Obama and then Trump were elected for most powerful position in world's history."

Excuse me, according to who? People have different opinions about powerful men and surely they fit for certain high standards when it comes to power and influence, but to say a politician can be an ultimate controller of a society even if we know that Obama would never win an US election if he wouldn't support Wall Street and had no close relations with powerful businessmen.

This is exactly where you have a problem with understanding complexity of "ruling class". You see the "powerful businessmen" as one monolit group. It is far away from the truth. In addition to my explanations from first paragraph about how different ideologically rich people are, let's have a look at richest people in US, as a real life example and not hypothetical mumbo-jumbo. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They pay tons and tons dollars in taxes, in their businesses and their personal lives. Buffett said on many occasions that he wouldn't even mind if government increased taxes for rich even more, because he wants to share his fortune with less fortunate. They both spend billions of dollars every year for various charities, one of them saving poorest people in Africa. This should give you a great idea how greedy, roofless and corrupt these richest capitalists are.
Look at the new breed of technology billionaires with fantastic inventions for betterment of human life. Smartphones, internet shopping, streaming music, cheaper taxi and lodging services, interac payments, health technology advances, movies on demand, cheap flights, cheap vacation in tropics, food from around planet in every store, people live longer and healthier than ever working less and less, etc, etc. All of these make our lives richer, safer more enjoyable. Heck, even homeless people, the poor of the poor "hated by capitalists" and not good for business, are better off these days, and get free food, free clothes, free room and free medical care.
Is this the way rich of the world control population?! Hey, if you can prove they do control us, I will be for it, lol, because they are doing damn good job!