Novara Media are a very prominent Marxist organization in the British political scene. Their commentators get invited on mainstream political shows regularly to offer their opinion on what is a reliably bland political discourse. Their takes are different and do offer something new for the average person who can always predict what the Tory and Labour representative are going to say. This distinction means that they are offering something that a lot of people may find attractive, however it could not be more certain that what they are offering should never be implemented. When you furrow into their thinking and morality, taking this video as a prime example, you discover that it’s completely incoherent and would lead the United Kingdom further down the path of stagnation and decline.
Michael Walker, a co-presenter of the video, states that the inheritance tax poses a political problem for him since most surveys show that a plurality of British voters do not like inheritance tax; “people from all classes hate it.” Socialists ground a lot of their political morality in diminishing inequalities present in society. For example, they favor wealth taxes on the wealthiest in society because they are obscenely rich when compared to the average person, so redistributing their wealth is a moral action. In their worldview, it is perfectly moral to steal from the wealthy; in practice it is often middle income earners made to give to the poor through state force. That policy runs into a hurdle when a majority of the poor oppose a policy that socialists support. It should be noted that democracy plays a pivotal role in the socialist morality system; if a majority favor something then it is the state’s duty to action it. Does this public opposition mean that Walker would delay introducing an increase in inheritance taxes?
It is not explicitly stated but Novara Media are also big supporters of the climate change movement. There are multiple members of the Novara team who repeatedly claim that climate change is an existential threat to the population. Yet, the Novara team seem to acknowledge that there is an opposition to policies that they believe will help mitigate climate change by the voters. It appears that some would still favor pushing through these policies, so it is not outlandish to claim that they would favor pushing ahead with changes to inheritance tax despite public opposition? Where does this leave their morality system? Working within their own moral system appears to reveal incoherency. It cannot be the case that, on the one hand, your reasoning tells you that what the majority need or want is the goal whilst, on the other, your philosophy says it is fine to force on the majority something they very obviously do not want or seem to need. There appear to be a few topics where the socialists at Novara Media would force their view—with the truncheon of the state behind them—on a population that opposes their view. Perhaps they have a way of explaining this incoherency but the political class in Britain are too shallow minded to challenge it.
Next, Walker states that “inheritance tax is the most fair tax, no one earnt their inheritance.” It is important to point out that Walker is not stating that the wealthy did not earn their inheritance or an individual with above X amount of wealth did not earn an inheritance, he states that “no one” has earned an inheritance. If Walker were to say those below X amount of inheritance should not pay the tax, it is an obvious inconsistency that would need an explanation. He, and others with similar opinions, would have to explain why someone who received £100 in inheritance did earn it but someone who received £1 million did not. However, if it is true that no one earnt their inheritance and it should apply to a lot more people than it does right now, as stated in the video, why shouldn’t it apply to everyone? The grandson who inherited £100 from his nana did not earn it, so should £20 or more be taken from the amount before it is bequeathed to him? If the answer is no, that must be explained too. The reply may be that this would harm those on the margin the most but they are willing to accept that their environmental policies would harm people on the margin too, so that reply is insufficient.
Their support for inheritance taxes rests on the statement that it was not earnt. A scenario may help illustrate how bizarre this statement is. Suppose there is a wealthy old lady who has no close relatives; she has £10 million to leave to someone but there are few options. She grows close to her care worker who gets paid very little, as do most care workers in the United Kingdom. So the old lady decides to leave it to her. The care worker has spent almost every waking moment with the old lady for months, maybe even years, and worked so hard to make the end of her life more comfortable, has she earnt it; or hasn’t she? The purpose of this example is not to say this is the norm but to test the socialist logic. The reply may be that the care person did earnt it, but she does not need all of it. So £8 million will be taken by the state. But that is not consistent with “no one earnt their inheritance.” If no one earnt it then should not all £10 million be redistributed? Even if that was the reply, the argument would still not be logically sound given that Walker, after the initial statement, explains, “If you’ve got parents who are able [to] bequeath an inheritance to you, you’ve probably already experienced a lot of privilege in your life.” Note, he is not saying if you get an inheritance above X then you are probably privileged; he is saying any inheritance suggests privilege in your life. If this is the case, then this will not harm them to the point of being pushed into poverty, so all inheritance amounts are up for grabs. The more you dig, the less linear and smooth their logic is.
Walking through the socialist framework highlights its flaws, but there remains much more to challenge. Walker advocates for lowering the inheritance tax threshold to £50,000, arguing that even if an individual only receives half of that, it is still “a bloody good deal.” With limited space for an in-depth discussion, there are a couple key issues that arise.
The legitimacy of the state’s authority to impose such taxation must be considered, as well as the absence of legitimate consent for it. The conversation in the video rests on the assumption that the state has the right and consent to forcibly take inheritance money from people who have died when this is not abundantly clear. The consent cannot be found like it would within a private written contract. If a private sector entity were to declare that disruptive behaviour is causing a nuisance and, to restore order, establish itself as the sole authority to determine what is legal while imposing a mandatory tax for enforcement of their own opinions, such an action would be rightfully rejected. Yet, this is the operation of the state.
The assumption that the state can allocate inheritance money more effectively than individuals needs to be challenged since history and theory prove otherwise. In the United Kingdom, you cannot build anything but it is even worse in the sense that the government has so much power yet, the state cannot build anything. It forks out billions just to inevitably downsize the project; HS2, a high-speed railway that went billions of pounds over budget, is a prime example of this. Also, where does value come from? The socialist framework assumes government actors can direct our resources to the most valuable ends. This is not true by default and must be explained.
Processing the framework of Novara Media’s morality system has laid out multiple issues. One does not need to know about natural law, homesteading, and natural rights theory or Austrian Economics to acknowledge the flaws in their system. Working within their own framework suffices to breakdown the moral foundations that uphold their entire worldview. Answers to the criticisms may be available but the United Kingdom suffers from a political class that is unable to challenge socialist thought processes. If the ideas of those at Novara Media remain unchallenged and the rightwing fails to offer an attractive alternative, then people will start looking to radical socialism for the answer. This will not alleviate what ails the United Kingdom. People in positions of influence need to pick up the gauntlet that has been thrown down by the radical socialists now before it’s too late.
