price of new guns

[Muskett]

EricP, it is going to take a bit to dissect your argument. Good argument given, but it doesn't tell the whole picture.

Population growth: 1960: 54M, 2022: 67M. So increased by the size of a London.

Your parents lived in a Council house, so a subsidised home, as per attached to the job. A lot of agricultural jobs came with a house, so not unusual.

Many households now have two cars, and live a far higher standard of living with foreign holidays.
An issue today is obesity so we do get plenty to eat.
Education is at a far higher standard, and 57% if not higher go to uni.
The NHS keeps us alive to 81. In 1965 it was 71. So on average we live ten years longer.
Private property ownership is far higher than 1965.
Pensions are much better than ever before.
We have far more stuff, and live a far higher standard of living than ever before.

In the 1960's base rate tax was higher and top rates hit as high as 90%. Much because we were buying into the new socialist system where the State provides. Plus we had war debts.
However, there are a few other taxes to consider:
1965 Corporation tax came in, Purchase Tax 25% now called VAT, National Insurance Tax, Death Duty, Council Tax, Road Tax, Energy Taxes.

When all the taxes are totalled up we all pay loads and loads. We are at levels similar to the 1970's socialist experiment that made us the basket case of Europe. Heck, it was Thatcher that slashed taxes to get us out of the economic pit of decline we had dug.

There is more, but I've got some work to do.

[EricP]

You misunderstand the meaning of the words council house
A council house was not a subsidised house attached to the job they were rented accommodation provided by the local authority. In our area it did not matter where you worked, for the council, for the steelworks, or in the grocery shop you paid the same rent to the council, so that is your first argument out of the window.
In 1965 there were three cars in our street, but public transport was affordable.
The state pension was enough to live on, it was only in the seventies that people on basic state pension qualified for benefits, working people were able to build up a superannuated pension as well. Now a state pension is less than half the minimum wage, if someone was working 40 hours a week for £8000 a year it would be less than £4 per hour.
There was more chance of improvement. I was the second in my direct line to go to grammar school and the first to go to University. Then at university you did not have a loan, you had a grant and tuition provided free.
As I said then, no food banks. Even on benefits you could live. If you were working even with higher taxes, which I enumerated you could put a roof over your head and food on the table. At that time most households had only one breadwinner.
Between 1970 and 2022, taxation income has remained relatively constant at 23-24% of GDP, growth in GDP in pounds sterling has been for the most part less than 5% per year, average annual inflation has been 5.75% between 1970 and now, in 1970 there were 2.4 dollars to the pound, in 1990 it was 1.68, now it is less than 1.2, therefore in real terms over the last 50 years the value of the pound has halved, thus our GDP as a result of rising inflation and the falling pound is less than it was 50 years ago. That is largely because of the destruction of our manufacturing base by St Margaret and her disciples. It also means that the taxation income to the government is less when it costs more to provide services such as defence and health services due to the cost of modern systems
As to your argument about obesity, that is spurious. Then there were no ready meals and only fish and chips as fast food outlets. Most food was cooked at home from fresh ingredients. Sweets were in the sixties (certainly the early part) still considered a luxury as they had just come off rationing when I was born in 1957. The main cause of obesity now is cheap fast food and it is more prevalent in poorer areas. It is a sign of poverty, not plenty.
I am sure people could write whole books on the subject of how much worse off we are under the free market economy.

[Muskett]

"Banks and estate agents have pushed up the price of property by much more than inflation or wages."
No property prices have gone up because of supply and demand. There are 11 million more people, and far fewer share than ever before. Government controls the amount of houses built through planning controls.
Banks lend money to builders and buyers. Estate agents are just selling agents. Neither have anything to do with how many houses there are nor their value.
You got a mortgage and paid if off from your savings, like many have.
Price of property reflect two main things: supply and what jobs are available with the corresponding salary potential. London property are more expensive because of the higher paid jobs and everyone wants a bit of that action.

Companies should pay the market rate for labour. If they pay too little the workforce goes elsewhere to where they are more appreciated. Good management likes a loyal workforce that helps ensure the continuation of the company, but if a company can't make some profit after tax then what is the point? Month after month a company has to find business to pay for everything including wages, NI, and all the rest.
What profit after tax is the shareholders. Shareholders money is their savings and for the risk lending it to a company they should expect a return. Would you lend your savings, money, to a company for nothing?
In fact you possibly already do lend for a return if you have a Private pension scheme. How else does that pension pot grow?

Public Transport was hopeless when wholly in government control. The heyday of trains was when they were all Privately run, same goes for coaches. Presently the most costly and inefficient part of railways is the track maintenance which is still government owned.
As for Buses then they can only be done if subsidised. The reason is because everyone just loves their own transport, car. Most house have two cars outside them now, because we all love them.
It's only in cities with car restrictions that Public Transport has a hope of working. Be it tubes, buses, or trams, then often heavily subsidised. The true cost hidden because competition isn't allowed and OAP's are given it free.

The economics of rural areas just means the costs are higher as there are fewer people, bigger distances, and more logistics. Most local convenience shops are owned by Supermarket chains. Those Supermarket chains still outcompete any local competition like Farm Shops even though some farm shops have far higher quality of food stuffs to offer though they do cost more.

Thatcher? The manufacturing industries were destroyed well before Thatcher. Small industries from world wide competition and high domestic taxes. Large industries that were Nationalised and then underfunded by risk adverse and bankrupt governments.
Something had to change. The UK found service industries had far better returns that could be sold worldwide and few competitors. Thatcher allowed the banking sectors to find the cash for the investment needed. Good thing the UK found somethings it could sell for a profit as we would be a lot poorer without them.
Having said that we do have a manufacturing industry; its just high tech.

Thatchers Poll Tax? Well, it was a socialist tax and was rejected. Socialist because everyone paid the same for local services as everyone uses local services about the same. Do two people in an expensive house use more local services than two people in a council house? No, but the tax was rejected and the old system was retained based on house value not occupants.
Yes, the tax gearing was changed for local collection rather than coming from general taxation. The reason was to give more responsibility to local government. General Taxation still forms part of the total.
Council's cut staff because the services they provide ever increasing services and those services cost more. They also have to pay pensions for people that live ten years longer now.

No Food Banks? Sure there were; they were called soup kitchens. Without a job life was far starker. Thankfully, in the 1950s and 60's there were jobs from rebuilding after the war. It all went wrong during the socialist experiment of the 1970s with Nationalisation.

Yes, I do know what a Council House is. Why in this age are we providing any Council Houses bar for those in absolute need? Its still subsidised housing.
It's Council Planning offices that have stopped more houses being built. Builders would have built more if they were allowed to.

So you are middle class. There were opportunities then as there are now. Most people are already "improved", your words. Most people consider themselves middle class now because of their education and possibly because they own their own house. When you went higher education was free, but with so many going now general taxation can't afford that. Should less people go and it be free again?

Another Thatcher knock. If the UK hadn't radically changed in the 1980s and 90's then are you suggesting the disaster of the 1970s would have provided the progress we have made?

Lastly, ask why poor people eat rubbish food now? Takeaways are expensive. Anyone with some basic cooking skills can make a better meal for half the price of a takeaway.
The reason is that even the poorest here can afford the food to make them fat.

I'm not sure where this discussion is going. Everyone in the UK enjoys a far higher standard of living than those in the 1960s, by quite a big margin. Thatcher was rough, but change was needed. Without that change, and if we had have continued with the disaster of the 1970s, then we would all be far poorer than now.
Absolutely there are things to be done. I just say excessive taxation has gone far enough. Excessive taxation kills progress. Lefty governmental policies are strangling our economy from the bureaucracy, costs, and spending of it all. I trust individuals more than some Big Brother State. When is it too much tax?