ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Brexit: Will Britain Be Allowed to Leave the EU?

Updated on May 13, 2019
James A Watkins profile image

James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with three non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.

Brexit

Brexit means the 'British Exit' from the European Union. The movement to leave the EU began in 2012 after the EU announced its plans to morph into a United States of Europe, complete with a federal government, which would make the 28 member countries such as Great Britain the equivalent of American states, like Wyoming. However, with a significant difference: The EU is to be ruled by unelected 'experts,' bureaucrats not accountable to the citizenry. The progressive dream. This is part of the march towards a New World Order of Global Government, which necessarily entails the elimination of all the world’s nation-states.

Brexit: Leavers vs. Remainers

Brexit supporters believe in national sovereignty; in an independent, self-governing, democratic Britain with borders. Moreover, for the people within those borders to make their own laws and culture.

They derive deep pleasure and satisfaction in being British, love Britain, and believe they should have every right to be proud of and protect their history and heritage. They want freedom of speech, freedom from political correctness, and an end to mass immigration from the Third World.

The greatest fear of the cosmopolitan elites of Europe is that the British leaving the EU will lead to other nations going as well. They are determined to stop Brexit at all costs.

The EU is a conspiracy of glitterati, comprised of social engineers who deny that ordinary people should have political power and a say in the life of their countries. As Theodore Dalrymple puts it, “The philosopher-kings of the EU do not want any damned-fool population getting in the way of the implementation of their wisdom.”

The European Union

The EU is determined to regulate all aspects of the daily lives of the 513 million souls who live in its member states. However, a promise was made to the British People before they joined the EU: "The vast majority of men and women in the country will never directly feel the impact of EU-made law at all. In the conduct of their daily lives, they will not need to have regard to any of the provisions of that law.”

There are now 12,000 EU laws on the books that were made in secret – and plenty more to come – that have been superimposed upon the ordinary citizens of the United Kingdom.

The Brexit Vote

In June 2016, Brexit was put to the vote. The political elites were hard against it but not overly anxious because their polling showed it would be handily defeated. The polls were wrong. More citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU than had ever before voted for anything or anyone. Outside of London, every region in England and Wales overwhelmingly chose to quit the EU. This was the most massive mandate in British history.

As soon as the results were known, the ruling classes of Britain and Europe went to work to undermine the clear will of the British People. The anti-Brexiters planned to betray the will of the people in the world’s oldest and most fabled democracy by putting up roadblocks and using delay tactics in the hopes that Brexit would never happen. Richard Dawkins says these delays are to provide time for older people to die off.

A billion news stories have denounced Brexit, and other populist movements across Europe, as “the hate and racism of ignorant losers,” just as they do President Trump and his supporters. The talking point pushed by the Left is that populism today is “the last stand of old white men soon to be supplanted.” However, 20% of young people support such movements across Europe; and 50% of those age 35-44 voted for Brexit, as did 33% of minorities.

Brexit supporters want to protect their jobs. And preserve the way of life in their homeland—what makes it Britain and not someplace else.

They want to take their country back from their 'betters': International bankers, multinational corporations, intellectuals, university professors, journalists, entertainers, bureaucrats and career politicians (73% of MPs voted against Brexit). Their betters have responded, “You cannot leave the European Union. We are in control. We don’t give a damn about people like you. You are piss ants. You are beneath us.”

The Virtue of Nationalism

In his 2018 book, The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony wrote: “The calumnies and denunciation heaped upon the English public and its elected leadership in the wake of Britain’s determination to seek independence from the European Union are an unmistakable warning to the West as a whole: The unification of Europe is not one legitimate political option among others. It is the only legitimate opinion to which a decent person can subscribe.

“It was alleged that only the aged supported exiting the European Union, thereby disenfranchising the young; or that only the uneducated had supported it, thereby diluting the say of those who really do know better; and so forth. These angry pronouncements were then followed by the demand that the British public's preference be repealed -- by a second referendum, or by an act of Parliament, or by closed-door bargaining with the Europeans. Anything, so long as the one legitimate opinion should prevail.”

Britain's Economy has Boomed Despite the Gloomy Predictions

Before the Brexit vote, dire predictions were loudly broadcast to scare the British people. If Brexit won, a great depression would instantly ensue, and half a million jobs would evaporate. Inflation and interest rates would run through the roof. Within days, supermarkets would be out of food; medicine would become scarce; traffic would come to a standstill. None of that happened.

Instead, more jobs were created, and the economy boomed. The number of people working is at a record high. Furthermore, while before the Brexit vote half of all new jobs created went to foreigners, since Brexit won almost all new positions have gone to British workers. Unemployment has fallen to a 45-year low. Wage growth has been strong, especially for those in the lowest paid jobs. The UK for the first time is now considered the best place on the planet to invest.

Britain has recently posted a record budget surplus, despite continuing to pay the EU one billion pounds per month for the pleasure of membership in a superstate they were supposed to have left by now.

It is the other countries in the EU that are in the economic doldrums. Britain has become a land of opportunity. Technology, engineering, transportation and logistics, health and medicine, are all booming. Jaguar Land Rover announced it would invest hundreds of millions of pounds in advanced manufacturing across the realm.

Brexit Day Came - and Went

March 29th, 2019 was supposed to be Brexit Day, the day Great Britain would once again become a sovereign nation independent of the EU. A clean break was supposed to happen, according to the will of the voters. The elites have so far weaseled out of it.

As Mr. Dalrymple says, “The political class, from the very first, overwhelmingly opposed Brexit—for some, the eventual prospect of a tax-free, expense-jeweled job in Brussels was deeply alluring—but found itself in a dilemma, since it could not openly deny the majority’s expressed wish.”

George Soros and Tony Blair have teamed up to stymie Brexit. They want a new referendum so that this time “people can reach the right conclusion” to remain in the EU.

Just as in the election of President Trump, sore losers deny the legitimacy of the will of the people and work to undermine the vote with overt propaganda and covert subversion. Blair and Soros declare that open borders are seen by the advanced 'open-minded' sorts such as themselves as awesome, but to the backward 'closed-minded' they are a threat to fear—for no good reason.

Prime Minister Theresa May has pretended to negotiate an exit from the EU, an exit against which she is dead set. The political class wants to kill it and might succeed. If the voters get it wrong, ignore the voters or make them vote again until they get it right.

Mass Immigration from the Third World

I can think of no issue in Britain where so vast a chasm exists between the will of voters and the actions of their elected representatives as immigration.

In 2002, it was said that white Britons would become a minority in their own capital city within a decade unless immigration were sharply curtailed. Just making this simple statement was assailed by the media as 'scaremongering' 'racist' 'Islamophobia' and 'fascist.' However, it was the truth, because today they are a minority in London. When did speaking the unvarnished truth become something only 'extremists' do?

The British People overwhelmingly opposed the immigration policies of their own government in every poll taken from 1948 to the present by about four to one. It made no difference to their elected leaders.

When the Labour Party took charge in 1997, things really accelerated. It opened the borders to everyone in the world. In each of Tony Blair’s years as Prime Minister, immigration was five times what it had been before he took office. Why? To import new voters that would dependably vote for the Labour Party. Also, according to Tony Blair’s speechwriter, it was to “Rub the Right’s Nose in Diversity.”

The Minister of Immigration under Blair said that all people from around the world could come and live in Britain because any restraint on open borders was 'racist.'

This was a cultural war being waged on the British people using migrants as a weapon. The worst part is the insistence of importing millions of people who have—for over 1,000 years—been the historical enemies of Europe and are hostile to the culture and way of life of the welcoming nations. People who do not share the worldview of their hosts, have no desire to blend in and are not grateful to be saved from penury but resentful.

From the start, this issue has been filled with lies and propaganda and the demonization of any opposition. In the early days, the public was assured that migrants were 'guest-workers' who would soon go back home. Not true. Once they step foot in Britain, they are there to stay.

From the 1950s until today the numbers of immigrants coming, legally and illegally, have been lied about—vastly underreported. The official figures might be only half the real number.

When anyone dares object to any of it, they are 'racist bigots' whose employment should be terminated. The lies include the constant claim that immigrants have benefitted the economy when in fact they cost the British taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars.

The British People never wanted their society transformed in this way. They have been systematically disenfranchised. Why? Why has the new nobility now running things been so at variance with the Will of the People?

Recently, 67% of the British public said immigration had been a bad thing for Britain—11% said "a good thing." They can see their nation's sense of identity being vanquished and their public services strained.

Besides importing terrorists, a crime wave has been unleashed by migrants on the native population. Not generally spoken is the idea many 'progressive' elites have that white Britons DESERVE what they are getting because of what their ancestors did back in the days of the British Empire. Revenge, in other words. Deliberate destruction of Britain and all of Europe because they must be punished for the sins of their fathers.

It is hard not to notice the vindictiveness with which the newfangled aristocracy and their media supporters determine to crush the concerns of the average working class in Britain or elsewhere in Europe. What we have here is vast societal change being FORCED on the public against their will.

The people were lied to that they would neither lose jobs to immigrants nor would their real wages, or standard of living go down. The economic benefit of immigration goes solely to the migrants, who gain the use of public facilities and a public treasury they have not paid for or into. They get far higher wages than in their homeland and send much of it back to foreign lands in remittances—taking it out of the local economy for good. To mention these simple facts—to tell the truth—gets one labeled an 'extremist.'

Whether we are talking about Brexit, Salvini in Italy, other populist movements across Europe, or the election of President Trump, we are witnessing a grassroots protest, led by native-born middle class and working class white people opposed to themselves and their children being systematically disdained, ridiculed, and disenfranchised because of their skin color by the anti-Christian, multicultural, globalist, godless gentry who run their countries—elites who fully intend to replace them with people from the Third World by advancing open borders policies; elites who want to kick those to the curb who have lived and contributed to their countries for generations or even centuries.

Globalists vs. Nationalists

The Left had a fit when President Trump said, “I am not a Globalist. I am a Nationalist.” They had a fit because they are Globalists: they want a World Without Borders, a world without nations, where there are no Americans only “Citizens of the World.”

I have three dictionaries and here is how they define the word 'Nationalist:’ 1) “A person who advocates political independence for a country [as in independent from the United Nations or the EU].” 2) “A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests.” 3) “A person with great love for their nation.”

There is nothing sinister about it.

A nation is a group of people with a common identity and shared loyalties that they do not share with others. A shared history creates a type of kinship. A nation is a stable and distinct community with strong bonds—often sharing common descent, religion, culture, art, heroes, traditions, customs, rites, boundaries, texts, and language—who feel themselves to be one people that identifies with their forefathers.

That is why Globalists promote unlimited migration of Third World Peoples into the successful countries – to rip apart those bonds that tie nations together.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      Thank you so much, John Harper, for sharing my article on your Facebook page. I am humbly honored that you did so, my friend. God Bless You!

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      NOYFOB ~ Payroll taxes of FICA WILL NO LONGER BE applied individually and recorded and accumulated for the individual.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      Will Starr ~ I agree with you 100%. As you put it, "No more snooping into our finances, our medical records, or how we spend our money."

    • aguasilver profile image

      John Harper 

      3 months ago from Malaga, Spain

      Great article James, reposted it to my FB pages.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      3 months ago

      Will

      I have yet to have an explanation how Payroll taxes, AKA FICA can be embedded in the fair tax. Payroll taxes of FICA as opposed to withholding are applied individually and recorded and accumulated for the individual. The purpose is to determine what benefits will inured to the individual. How is this going to be accomplished with FAIR TAX?

      Don't get me wrong, I like anything that gets rid of the 16th amendment.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "NOYFOB ~ The FairTax would replace ALL federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales."

      Yes, it also eliminates the great fraud of corporate taxation. I call it a fraud because all such taxes are passed on in the price of goods and services to the ultimate consumers...you and me.

      The elimination of corporate taxes means that the price of goods and services will drop drastically because competition will force the lowering. One economist said that almost 1/2 of the price of a new car is actually hidden corporate taxes, so the FairTax would cause the retail price of a new car to drop by almost half.

      The FairTax will also eliminate all withholding, record-keeping for tax purposes, April 15th, H&R Block, and most of the IRS!

      No more snooping into our finances, our medical records, or how we spend our money. No more manipulation of our lives via tax incentives.

      The FairTax is also the gateway to a vast new freedom for all of us. All businesses make decisions based on tax advantages, but under the FairTax, there is no tax burden at all except at retail sales, so businesses are free to compete internationally without worrying about tax shelters.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      NOYFOB ~ I totally agree with you about the grave disparities in the the benefits for regular joes and government employees. I wrote about this in the past: https://hubpages.com/politics/Public-Employee-Labo...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      3 months ago

      James

      I am still confused about the taxes. tell me again how FICA is met and distributed to the person? Right now the tax is capped, but spending is a variable?

      I don't understand how SS and Medicare would be funded on an individual person? Is there a pie chart on the components of the 23%?

      A better plan would be to end the SS and Medicare, and make it more like the benefits given to government employees. FERS, and FEHB

      The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. The FEHB Program can help you and your family meet your health care needs. Federal employees, retirees and their survivors enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country.

      FERS and CSRS federal employee retirement benefits are generous, however they will cost you retirement dollars, especially for health and life insurance coverage. Uncle Sam will continue federal employee's health benefits, as long as you were enrolled in the program for the last five years of your service, however you must pay the same monthly .

      The Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) is a three-tiered system that includes:

      Social Security

      Basic Benefit

      Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)

      https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/my-annuity...

      My point is that the 23% is going to be used to pay for these expensive benefits for Federal Employees. Compare what they get with SS and compare FEHB with Medicare.

      It is interesting how the government uses their SS and Medicare contributions to a benefit in their FERS, and FEHB.

      This is a huge expense for taxpayers, and a huge inequity in the system. SS and Medicare for the rest of us, the bonus pack for the Federal Employees.

      Thanks

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      NOYFOB ~ The tax would be levied once at the final retail sale for personal consumption on new goods and services, including Internet sales. Purchases of used items, exports and all business transactions would not be taxed.

      The FairTax is a proposal to reform the federal tax code of the United States. It would replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      T ~ You mentioned something I hadn't though of: Black Market. It is possible you may be right about that. Thanks for bringing my attention to that possibility.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      3 months ago

      James

      Thanks. I couldn't find out what items were exempt from the tax. I think it should be food. And would it include Internet Sales?

      Also, tell me again how FICA is met and distributed to the person? Right now the tax is capped, but spending is a variable?

    • tsadjatko profile image

      3 months ago from now on

      It would be interesting to find out just what the results would be. For a tight wad like me, I wouldn’t buy anything I didn’t have to have or only if it was on clearance! And I’d save a whole lot! The economy would be bust if everyone bought like me - commercials have no effect on me other than for entertainment value. I can’t tell you what the product is for any commercial I’ve seen...except geico, and I never had one thought to buy their product.

      Don’t you think there would be a huge rise in black market and corporate crime to avoid the tax? Look what Volkswagen did on car emissions regulation.

      0n the other hand if you can put off purchases while investing that extra paycheck money wisely you can increase your buying power to offset the tax on big purchases. It could be quite a complicated task to predict the results of a fair tax, like predicting climate change - we just won’t know until we try it I guess but why not? We could always go back.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      NOYFOB ~ I do believe you have calculated that correctly. But remember, if you earn $1,000 a week now you take home what, $650? Under this plan you take home the whole $1000. And remember, taking $350 out of your check every week is something you are forced to do. Buying something for $1000 is voluntary.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      3 months ago

      Will

      I looked at the fair tax plan again, tell me what you think every purchase would cost?

      CA sales tax 8%

      FAIR Tax 23%

      So a $1000 items would cost $1310?

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      Andrew Stewart ~ I wholeheartedly agree with you. I do hope it is resolved, that a clean break is made with the EU, and Britain can get down to business.

    • Asp52 profile image

      Andrew Stewart 

      3 months ago from England

      I think that the whole question of Brexit has gridlocked our political system. Many of the political parties are crumbling because of it and deep rooted problems in society are ignored. Hopefully we get Brexit and some measure of sound government is returned.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 months ago from Chicago

      Andrew Stewart ~ I am so glad to hear from you on this, as you are a UK citizen. Thank you for coming over to read my take on Brexit. I appreciate your comments, with which I agree 100%.

    • Asp52 profile image

      Andrew Stewart 

      3 months ago from England

      As a UK citizen, I read this with interest. There was a democratic vote and the people should be heard. The situation was handled badly from all sides. The whole of the United Kingdom must leave the European Union. If the exit is stopped or further delayed, then democracy has been ignored. Whether or not the UK should rejoin has to be asked at a later date, but not right away.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Thanks for that link, Will Starr. I fully support the aims of that fine organization.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ I like all of your ideas here. I had no idea the Tax Gap was so large. Thanks for the enlightenment on that. As far as the 23% goes, if there was no withholding and no income tax and no FICA, I do not see it as an onerous amount. I would love to see government spending cut if half. But who is going to do it? It is far easier to start some new benefits program than it is to end one once it has momentum.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      MAGA,

      The Fairtax would eliminate all federal payroll deductions, including FICA:

      https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works?gclid=...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      James

      Can people afford to pay 23% federal and 7 plus % on every purchase, I don't think so. I am not looking to support the over inflated obese ever expanding government.

      The point that I may not have been clear about is that the NST will force the rich that have hundreds of deductions, credits, and deferments on their huge fortune would be paying their fair share. This would more than compensate lowering the NST to half of the 23% federal tax.

      Yes, the top 10% percent rich do pay as much as the rest of the 90%, but that is only scratching the surface of what the rich should be paying. Bill Gates has doubled his fortune since 2008. Does that seem like he is paying his fair share, while he and Warren Buffet are sending tens of billions to Africa?

      In millions!

      Year Individual Income Taxes Corporate Income Taxes Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts Excise Taxes Other Total

      2018 estimate $1,977,142.00 $450,377.00 $1,280,054.00 $125,092.00 $141,309.00 $3,973,974.00

      Also consider this fact

      "The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) recently released a report entitled “Overview of the Tax Gap.” The tax gap is the difference between taxes paid and taxes owed, and this gap can exist for a few reasons. Taxpayers may report less than their full tax liability on their return (underreporting), pay less taxes than owed (underpayment), or simply not file a tax return at all (non-filing).

      The IRS estimates that, between tax years 2008 and 2010, the U.S. had an annual gross tax gap of $504 billion, and an annual net tax gap of $447 billion, in 2016 dollars. The annual net tax gap is lower because that number is adjusted for late payments and payments due to enforcement. Overall, the voluntary compliance rate was 81.7 percent, while the net compliance rate was 83.7 percent. These compliance rates are a few percentage points lower than tax gap estimates in 2001 and 2006, but according to the IRS, most of this decline is due to recent methodology changes and the addition of new tax gap components, not to changes in taxpayer behavior."

      B:

      This kind of fuzzy math would be reduced and taxes would be based on what is purchased, not on how much is made. That $2 Trillion dollars that you quoted as Income Tax Receipts would be used by the taxpayers to purchase and that should stimulate business. The lower tax rate could be beneficial in a cumulative spending and NST. That is more purchases at the lower rate could achieve the same 23% but stimulate the economy instead of stifling it. There would be no withholding, and that would be ready cash for people to consume. Currently, they couldn't spend what the government has already taken out.

      Another useful change would be to reverse the SCOTUS South Dakota decision on credit card rates. This involved SD being lured by the credit card companies to raise their usury law rate from 10%, then the SCOTUS allowed the credit card companies to apply the SD rate across the country. SD in turn got to house all the credit card companies HQ.

      In addition, the congress should gave the people the tax deductions that they lost in the 1986 Tax Reform Act. That included finance charges.

      And while they are at it reduce the 2013 Medical Deduction Threshold that was raised from 7.5% to 10% because of Obamacare. Reduce it to 2% where the few existing deduction are now.

      The aggregation of all of these changes should be more beneficial than what it is under income tax, as well as being lower transaction taxing than the Fair Tax of 23%. It is being Fair to the government not to the people.

      The people would benefit by the US government cutting spending. Start with reductions in the IRS and the TAX court, and reducing the very expensive benefits only found for government workers. Those benefits are unfunded liabilities.

      I know that it is insane for me to expect the government to taste the pain of it master, the people.

      As for FICA, I left it out of the NST because it shouldn't part of the NST.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ Well, let's see . . . what are total retail purchases in America per year? Six trillion dollars? So 23% would be around $1.5T? Wait a minute, the feds are collecting $3.6T this year. I'm not sure 23% is enough. I must be missing something. Of course, I just got up and maybe not thinking clearly yet this morning. I've only had one cup of coffee so far.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Will Starr ~ Right you are, my friend: "Part of the wisdom behind the Fairtax, MAGA, is to reveal all the hidden taxes we are paying at the retail level." Sort of our hidden VAT.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ You've got a point that "This high rate tax wouldn't induce the government to reduce expenses." Perhaps was it is needed is a balanced budget law at the same time.

      And you are surely right about this: "They are public servants getting treated like the master."

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Will Starr ~ I LOVE your idea of the FAIRTAX. Back when I was involved with politics I supported that organization. I think that is a great plan.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ I love your idea of a National Sales Tax if it would do away with the Internal Revenue Service. Or at least, eliminate the Income Tax. The fear would be that the feds would figure out a way to have both.

      You wrote that "FICA would still be withheld by the employer." I see no need for that. Why couldn't the NST be the sole supplier of fed monies, including FICA and all the various excise taxes? Simplifying everything being one of the motivations for changing the system.

      You are absolutely right about "SCOTUS says it is a federal matter whenever the government says it is a federal matter. Then the SCOTUS will find a Locus for it to make its decisions." Look at the convoluted example of Obamacare, which I thought for sure would have been struck down, as you mentioned in your outstanding comments.

      Thank you for engaging.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      Will

      I already checked it out and commented in my previous comment that the 23 percent was too high?

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Retail taxes are not federal taxes are they.

      When a corporation digs ore out of the ground and sells it to a smelter, it passes on its taxes in the price. The smelter then passes its taxes and the taxes paid by the miner on to the corporation that turns the iron into fabricated steel. And so on until we buy the car and all those hidden taxes.

      BTW, the Fair Tax is a national sales tax. Check it out.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      Will Starr

      Retail taxes are not federal taxes are they.

      Could you explain this tax as to how it would be better than a NST?

      Because I don't understand it.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Part of the wisdom behind the Fairtax, MAGA, is to reveal all the hidden taxes we are paying at the retail level.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      Will

      " The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% compared to combining the 15% income tax bracket with the 7.65% of employee payroll taxes under the current system -- both of which will be eliminated!"

      I think that is way to high to pay. When you add the 7-8% of state sales tax, it becomes a huge burden on the consumer.

      This high rate tax wouldn't induce the government to reduce expenses, and allow it to continue to expand. It would serve the government and its very well paid government employee salaries, and even more expensive benefits. To allow government workers to get the best healthcare, retirement and other benefits at the expense of the taxpayer is a real problem. They are public servants getting treated like the master imo.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      MAGA: "We could change their rules by supporting a National Sales Tax to totally replace the income tax system."

      The FAIRTAX would do that by replacing all other Federal taxes (including Social Security) with a sales tax.

      There would be no payroll deductions and no hidden corporate taxes to be passed on to consumers. That alone would reduce prices drastically. For instance, much of the price of a new car is hidden taxes.

      They would be no record keeping for taxes, no April 15th, and a very limited IRS. The qualifying poor would get a periodic sales tax refund.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      James

      We could change their rules by supporting a National Sales Tax to totally replace the income tax system.

      1. It would allow more uniform distribution of wealth.

      2. It would allow the IRS to be reduced in size, and for the IRS Tax Court to be removed.

      3. It would restore our 4th and 5th Amendment privilege. The Income Tax bypasses our right to privacy to protect Revenue, not a valid exception imo. The mandate that we the people tell the government about our income including any there were received from criminal activity bypasses our right to remain silent. And by forcing us to sign the return under penalty of perjury all go to making the threat of crime just to get revenue is again not imo a reason to dilute our constitutional privileges.

      4. The National Sales Tax is similar to the state sales tax already in the states. So any argument against it is already answered.

      5. The NST is different than a Flat Tax even though the Tax could be flat, that it is not based on income.

      6. CPA and other businesses that rely on Income Tax could and should go back to Auditing. CPAs were created to audit businesses, not the people.

      7. FICA would still be withheld by the employer, but there would be no withholding, and people would have control over their money. The government with income tax takes their share with withholding and that is just wrong. The sales tax will be voluntary in the sense that people that run out of money won't buy, and the rich will at some point have to spend their wealth. And that is how they will finally pay their fair share.

      8. The Internal Revenue Code will die a well earned death.

      9. The National Sales Tax can be implemented without the repeal of the 16th amendment, it would just not be enforced or used, There is no mandate from the constitution that an amendment has to be used, that I know exists.

      10. The NST serves the intended purpose to produce revenue for the government. But it eliminates most of the clandestine reasons that it was really created to reach its goal or controlling and spying on people.

      11. I don't know how strong the law is for repealing the 16th amendment, but apportionment would be the issue.

      12. While an amendment is patently constitutional, the means of implementing it can be found to be unconstitutional. As we have seen when the death penalty has been found to be unconstitutional as implemented.

      13. Of course, the SCOTUS has been knocking down each and every attack trying to make the Income Tax Laws unconstitutional but they is political imo, than it is upholding the constitution.

      14. We have also seen this kind of protection with the Interstate Commerce Clause that imo, SCOTUS says it is a federal matter whenever the government says it is a federal matter. Then the SCOTUS will find a Locus for it to make its decisions.

      In one early case, SCOTUS decided that the Interstate Commerce Course was applicable in a totally local case because of its effect on Interstate produce not being purchased. This was a case where a commercial farmer had put aside 10 acres of his land to grow produce for his families consumption only. The court said because he growing his own it had an effect on interstate commerce?

      In another case, the court ruled on an entirely intrastate issue that because they used a telephone to make a local call that invoked the ICC. Why, because the telephone lines cross state lines.

      When it comes to SCOTUS and the government can we really trust them to not be biased in favor of the government?

      Look at Obamacare, it was deemed constitutional by SCOTUS as a TAX?

      I hope this was in scope with your comment.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ Methinks you are onto something there.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      T ~ Quantitative Easing, I think 'they' call it, whoever 'they' are. ;)

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Will Starr ~ I must say it is quite sobering to read your comments: "The political solution was to confiscate the people's gold and silver and then put us on a 100% fiat system. The upshot is a $21,000,000,000,000 debt that can never be paid off, so look for a major upheaval in the future. That too is probably part of the long-range plan to destroy America and have socialism rise from the ashes."

      I must confess, I believe you are right.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      James

      That is why I don't do social media.

      I do Linkedin

      And I use Duckduckgo instead of Google.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ You make an outstanding point when you write,"The Income Tax would allow the government to dynamically fund any increase that it needed to expand government. The SCOTUS decisions on the Interstate Commerce Clause allowed anything to become a federal issue, thus usurping the zero sum world of the 10th amendment."

      And truer words have not been spoken than these of yours: "Capitalism would work better for the people if we didn't have this unnecessary burden of an obese, lethargic, and parasitic central government."

      You do trace the severe problems right back to their source. Woodrow Wilson argued that because we now have a “scientific understanding of human behavior” America required a new “living Constitution” interpreted “according to Darwinian principles” so that he and other ‘experts’ empowered by an expanded federal government could guide the millions of us he called “selfish, Ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.”

      Here we see the foundation of ‘progressive thought,’ the concentration of power in a federal Leviathan—the very kind of government that our Constitution was designed to prevent. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body is the great enemy of liberty and the rights of man.”

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Will Starr ~ Nice to hear from you, my friend. You are certainly right that "The diversity and multiculturalism so dear to the left actually has a very sinister goal. It will eventually destroy the cohesiveness that has made us a mighty nation."

      I just finished reading a 100-page essay called the Politicization of University Schools of Education by Jay Schalin that is eye-popping along those lines. If you have a chance to pull it up, pages 15-45 in particular show us what and who we are up against.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Ken Burgess ~ You said it perfectly well: "all of those who are living comfortably in North America & Europe have to sacrifice a significant amount of their rights, wealth, living conditions for this global transformation to become a reality."

      There it is brother. That is exactly what the Globalists have in mind.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ Yes sir, I fully expect censorship of the Christian worldview and/or Conservative political positions to be in full swing next year on social media to swing the election. One might as well say Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Google are the online arm of the Democratic Party.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 months ago from now on

      Will, i’ve always heard how fed printing money will cause runaway inflation, especially in 2009 after the crash, when the fed created enormous amounts of money! Money creation doesn't have to be physical; the central bank can simply imagine up new dollar balances and credit them to other accounts.

      So what happened to runaway inflation all during this time - ten years and nothing!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      Will Starr

      Thank you for reminding us about the Federal Reserve and Wilson. Where would 2008 have been without the tireless protection it gives to the US:)

      Thanks also for the Fiat money information. FDR, Nixon and France help the Fiat system take away the gold backing. Now, I guess our money relies on how much mache money can be printed. Fun paper, mache. This is like the house of paper version of the house of card!

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive president, in order to get around the restrictions of gold and silver coin. Gold and silver cannot be created, but paper money, due to its fiat nature, can be created and spent by the billions, but doing so means vast inflation, so a means also had to be created to get all that fiat money back out of circulation, and that means was the 16th Amendment and the income tax.

      The mistake was funding World War One by printing up billions more gold certificates than gold on deposit, and then destroying the extras in the mid-twenties. That turned the 'Roaring Twenties' and all that cash into the the Great Depression as all that money disappeared and the Stock Market crashed. The Fed finally admitted that it caused the Depression a few years ago.

      The political solution was to confiscate the people's gold and silver and then put us on a 100% fiat system. The upshot is a $21,000,000,000,000 debt that can never be paid off, so look for a major upheaval in the future. That too is probably part of the long-range plan to destroy America and have socialism rise from the ashes.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      James

      It is unbelievable that in the 21st century, we have a resurgence of failed philosophical concepts from the 19th century.

      There seems to be a mythical power used by the left to reanimate Marx and Nietzsche both of whom had lives that none would want to trade with them.

      Whether is socialism or communism the core is there as an mechanism to repudiate capitalism. Both have failed to do that then and now, yet the left have become the torch carriers for these dead philosophers and their dead philosophy.

      While capitalism is the better approach, it is also hampered by the same problem. That problem is that the people are never really in control. However, capitalism gives them more. It is the political aspect that causes problems for capitalism. In the US, the unequal distribution of wealth can be deduced to the 1913 creation of the 16th amendment which taxed income. The power to tax by congress already existed in the constitution. What the amendment did was to eliminate the need to apportionment.

      This was the critical element of the Interstate Commerce Clause which basically protected merely transporting products and materials across state lines from being fully taxed in each state when the products were just passing through and not the final destination.

      Without the help of SCOTUS both of these elements couldn't have been merged to become the problem for the people.

      The ultimate long term goal of these individual and seemingly unconnected events was to actually move from a small central government to one that could increase by using these events.

      The Income Tax would allow the government to dynamically fund any increase that it needed to expand government. The SCOTUS decisions on the Interstate Commerce Clause allowed anything to become a federal issue, thus usurping the zero sum world of the 10th amendment which is a residual effect. The Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment are 100% of the zero sum of power between the states and the central government. The more that the federal government takes, the less the states have to control.

      The Adam Smith concept of Economics was meant for a free market, but when government extends into the market the concept become more complex and its results are degraded.

      How does all this tie into my statement about capitalism?

      The government has through the income tax benefited for itself at the expense of the people. At the same time, both political parties have created the Internal Revenue Code that immunizes the rich and the very rich from being the pawn of the government. In essence, these rich and powerful people and corporation may indeed be the real government behind the facade we call the 3 branches of US government.

      Capitalism would work better for the people if we didn't have this unnecessary burden of an obese, lethargic, and parasitic central government. It is difficult to understand how we today are called the United States of America. We are on our way to USSA. United Socialist States of America, but we will still have the 16th, and the Interstate Commerce Clause to implement it. The reason is these elements were never part of capitalism.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The United States, like the UK, is being flooded with new dependents who have no intention of assimilating. They are being encouraged to come by one-world socialists and they are being encouraged to get on welfare, speak only in their native tongue, and vote for democrat socialists.

      The diversity and multi-culturalism so dear to the left actually has a very sinister goal. It will eventually destroy the cohesiveness that has made us a mighty nation, which will make us far more vulnerable to a one-world government.

      The ordinary, open-borders supporters have not thought this through at all. The elite political classes, however, know exactly what they're doing

    • Ken Burgess profile image

      Ken Burgess 

      4 months ago from Florida

      James,

      "worldwide socialism [-] where every person on Earth would live on $4000 a year, to be 'fair.' The biggest loser there would be Western Civilization, obviously. We have the most to lose."

      Indeed, and this is the ultimate goal of 'Open Borders' "Globalism' 'NWO'... this is the goal of the U.N. of the leadership of the E.U. and of the growing majority of those in the Democratic Party.

      In the process all of those who are living comfortably in North America & Europe have to sacrifice a significant amount of their rights, wealth, living conditions for this global transformation to become a reality.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      MAGA

      I agree with you, and this indicates that the globalists, including the zombie left here are embolden by their short gain progress. Brexit is stalled, and the Mueller left is perpetuating the false cloud on president Trump.

      As you can see from the actions of those on left here, they are going all in to win the 2020 presidency and even congress. They cannot risk another 4 years of president Trump as he can set them back to the last century.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ Thank you for your kind compliments. I agree with you that Brexit and the Wall are part of the same issue, as is what is happening in Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, and to a smaller degree, France and Germany.

      There is no doubt you are right that the goal of the globalists is a world without borders. They even say so.

      Western Civilization hangs in the balance. The Left knows this, which is why lately they have taken to calling Western Civilization itself 'white supremacy.' It must be downgraded before it is destroyed. It must be made indefensible in the eyes of the young. The shame is, it is man's greatest achievement.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Vivian Coblentz ~ Thank you for reading my piece. I enjoyed your thoughtful insights. That Soros is an evil dude. And you are spot on that "Ultimately, this is all working towards One World Government so the Antichrist can arise on the scene and take charge."

      I am glad you enjoyed my explanation of 'nationalist.' It has been made a dirty word according to political correctness, which is an evil ideology or part of one. PC makes us lie about the truth and agree to what is untrue. That is one reason President Trump was elected.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Thank you, Ken Burgess, for taking the time to read my article and leave such well reasoned remarks for me to ponder.

      You may be right about China not playing along with global government. I see the Islamists' 49 countries as an obstacle as well.

      As for China, if the New World Order has at least the ruse of being 'democratic' China would have about 1/7th of the total worldwide votes, and three times the power of the USA.

      And Asia would have a clear majority, with about 60% of all voting power, so if it was 'majority rule' Asia could outvote everybody on everything, such as vote for worldwide socialism, to where every person on Earth would live on $4000 a year, to be 'fair.' The biggest loser there would be Western Civilization, obviously. We have the most to lose.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      4 months ago

      James

      Another well detailed and structured article.

      As I was reading it, in my mind I could see and overlay substitution between the US and Illegal Aliens, and Brexit with their immigrants.

      The game is the same, and you can take Brexit, and the US border wall as the same parts.

      The EU immigrants, and the US illegal aliens are also interchangable.

      The goal for both Brexit and the US illegal aliens is open border, and no immigration.

      As you mentioned about the Brexit immigrants flooding GB, and tapping the public faucet, and sending money back to their own countries, it is the same thing that is being done by the illegal aliens.

      And as we saw in the attempted invasion of the US right before the mid term election, the migration of several thousand of people from Central America and even Mexico was not to get into America, and become Americans but it was much like the 1849 invasion of CA to get the gold.

      The flags that were flying by this invading body of people wasn't the American Flag, it was their country's flag. And they would never want to be Americans, they only wanted the gold.

      in the 21st century, the globalists have managed to get past the 3 point shot, and under Obama they got some 2 point jump shots. Now that success has embolden them to go for simple layups.

      This is dangerous, because they now see the win.

      In the US they just need to get control of the presidency, and their game is in the bag, even without the senate.

      For GB, Brexit resistance is to the point where they have to go all in to get their ball past the old white goalie. I switched from basketball (US) to soccer (EU) in my analogy.

      Finally, as you pointed out the winner will not be either the illegal aliens, or the EU because of the China Russia pact and that these two countries want to keep their sovereignty.

      Just like China and the USSR caused the US to totally lose Vietnam, they could also totally take the EU and the US equivalent because they have done it before.

      George Orwell in 1948, wrote the 1984 story that may be the 2019 title. Although, I don't think this was the method he described but the result might be the same.

      In the end, the result will depend on how smart is the new generation?

    • Noelle7 profile image

      Vivian Coblentz 

      4 months ago

      James,

      I was not aware of all the details surrounding the Brexit situation. I now feel so much more informed after reading your article! The parallels between what is happening there and in America is very clear. Ultimately, this is all working towards One World Government so the Antichrist can arise on the scene and take charge. Scary.

      George Soros is old. How long is that evil man going to live?

      I am so glad you explained the difference between a globalist and a nationalist. Calling oneself a nationalist has become a dirty word and it shouldn't be. Diversity is the enemy of nationalism for reasons that are clearly not racist.

      Another superb and much needed article!

    • Ken Burgess profile image

      Ken Burgess 

      4 months ago from Florida

      UN, WB, WTO, IMF ...

      "As soon as the results were known, the ruling classes of Britain and Europe went to work to undermine the clear will of the British People. - putting up roadblocks and using delay tactics in the hopes that Brexit would never happen. "

      Exactly what they did, and are doing, there will be no Brexit.

      And they will do their best to never allow another 'independent' President after Trump.

      IMO they are targeting the wrong 'threat', the biggest threat to their NWO Globalism is China and the China-Russia Pact.

      Neither China or Russia are interested in giving up any control or sovereignty to an International Authority. China in particular does everything with an eye towards being the global Super Power that no longer has to acknowledge the International bodies (unless it is China that controls them) or America's Authority.

      In this, both the International organizations, NWO types, and China are all aligned, they want Trump defeated in 2020, and they want to cripple America's economy so that it can be replaced as the International Reserve.

      Another article well done.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Awdur ~ Thank you very much and you are most welcome. It always makes my day to see you have read my work and it meets your approval.

      JJRBJ

    • awdur profile image

      Awdur 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      J~ As always, you have provided me with a to-the-point explanation of something that I did not fully understand. Thank you for the lesson. Great Hub~ J

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      T ~ You are most welcome. Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful comments. I am well pleased to receive your kind compliments as well.

      You said it: "that is just what our elected representatives in the US have been doing for decades, giving their constitutional responsibilities over to federal agencies, Czars, judges who legislate from the bench, and political operatives who have never been elected by the people."

      Exactly. The EU has a parliament but, as the Wikipedia page notes, "it does not formally possess legislative initiative as most national parliaments of European Union member states do. Legislation is the prerogative of the European Commission [the bureaucracy]."

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 months ago from now on

      And we think we have problems here in the US! James I am so glad you have explained this in the way that you have.

      I don’t concern myself much with what’s going on in Europe but in all the reporting I have heard on the TV and radio about Brexit I don’t recall any reporter mentioning the “significant difference: The EU is to be ruled by unelected 'experts,' bureaucrats not accountable to the citizenry.”

      It seems to me in any story about anything concerning the EU that should be the headline or at least in the lead of the story. Maybe I just wasn’t paying enough attention but when I read it in your article I couldn’t believe it - I’d like to think if I ever heard that reported before I’d remember it. Guess I’m just getting too far over the hill to pay attention cause I can’t believe our media would want to hide something like that!

      After the spread of democracy over the last two centuries I can’t conceive of how european people would give over their right to self determination to “unelected 'experts,' bureaucrats not accountable to the citizenry”

      That is just insane but if you think about it that is just what our elected representatives in the US have been doing for decades, giving their constitutional responsibilities over to federal agencies, Czars, judges who legislate from the bench, and political operatives who have never been elected by the people

      For me this has been one of the most informative articles you have gifted us!

      Thank you.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 months ago from Chicago

      Will Starr ~ Thank you very much, my friend, for swinging by to read my piece here today. It is always a pleasure to hear the voice of reason that you never fail to provide. I totally agree with your comments and I appreciate your gracious compliments.

      James

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The progressive-socialist left claims to love diversity, but what is more diverse than separate, self-ruled nations, each with their own language, traditions, and little quirks?

      The one-world government sought after by world-wide-socialism (and already represented by the EU Britain was wise to leave) will allow very little diversity. In fact, conformity will be the rule and strictly enforced by the might of the state.

      Our own Federal government is teetering toward tyranny as the progressive-left gains power by importing dependents that will vote for the same progressive-socialism that they originally fled to come to the US.

      Excellent new Hub, James!

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)