Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 77

Thread: price of new guns

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Scarborough, N Yorks
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by angrybear View Post
    I get what you're saying but it's not that simple because the % profit taken by the factory will be a slightly higher figure as will the % profit by everyone along the chain.

    so if it did cost £200 to produce + 10% profit = £20, out the door at £220, the wholesaler takes his 10% (£22) & sells for £242 etc, etc

    if the £ is worth less, so it now costs £250 to produce, that 10% profit is now £25 so out the door becomes £275, the wholesalers 10% now becomes £27.50 so he sells at £302.50, etc, etc.

    If the foreign gun is made in a country with a better exchange rate their increase might only go up to £220 to produce, so out the door with 10% profit at £242, wholesale £266.20, etc etc

    does that make sense to you.
    Absolutely not I'm afraid. With a weaker Pound, one would expect the imported complete goods to increase by more than the home produced unit, where only the raw materials had increased.

    I think the reason is more likely the shafting syndrome referred to in RR1's post.
    Walther CP-2 Match, FAS 604 & Tau 7 target pistols, Smith & Wesson 6" & 4" co2 pistol, Crosman 1377,
    Baikal IZH 53 pistol, Gamo CFX Royal,177, Umarex SA-10 CO2 pistol.

  2. #47
    look no hands's Avatar
    look no hands is offline Even better looking than a HW35
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Telford, even closer to Tony L.
    Posts
    12,352
    Quote Originally Posted by rapidresponse1 View Post
    some nice second hand guns in my local gun shop yesterday
    Anything interesting and what shop?
    Far too many rifles to list now, all mainly British but the odd pesky foreigner has snuck in

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    gateshead
    Posts
    25,965
    bagnal and kirkwoods,but on internet it does not show all second hand ones

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,665
    andrewM, I regular bore everyone ridged.

    The UK invested in service industries, not manufacturing. We are very good at service industries which can be very profitable.
    Profitable means tax revenue.

    Our designers are very good. Our population educated, but I wonder if educated in the necessary skills? Ask what our education system is for and do the teachers and lecturers have the skills to provide what is required? Most of our educational staff have never worked in business.

    We do do some premium manufacturing. However, still the high tax system we have mean anything that doesn't have a high premium isn't going to be made here.
    When we were in the EU a whole lot of manufacturing investment was decided by the EU, and it wasn't going to be here; so it isn't. For example though we have some very good car manufacturing here, a whole lot of British badged is done elsewhere in Europe. Ask why?
    The Grenadier would have been built in Wales, but local government faffed over planning, so the EU gave a whopping incentive to use a French Mercedes surplus plant. First production isn't going to be built here now.

    Until our tax system makes us look ready for business, adventurous, able to do risk, and attractive for investors, then don't expect anything that positive.
    Keep voting for those whose can't think further than the NHS and how to prop up the Public sector, then don't be surprised we have decline.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,665
    Most manufacturing products and raw materials are based on fuel costs. Ask why fuel costs in the UK are through the roof? In Europe too.

    China and India are buying fuel cheaper than ever. Plus they have no problem using coal.

  6. #51
    look no hands's Avatar
    look no hands is offline Even better looking than a HW35
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Telford, even closer to Tony L.
    Posts
    12,352
    Quote Originally Posted by rapidresponse1 View Post
    bagnal and kirkwoods,but on internet it does not show all second hand ones
    Many thanks, it may be worth giving them a call to see if they have anything I'm after.
    Far too many rifles to list now, all mainly British but the odd pesky foreigner has snuck in

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Pulborough
    Posts
    997

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Muskett View Post
    andrewM, I regular bore everyone ridged.

    The UK invested in service industries, not manufacturing. We are very good at service industries which can be very profitable.
    Profitable means tax revenue.

    Our designers are very good. Our population educated, but I wonder if educated in the necessary skills? Ask what our education system is for and do the teachers and lecturers have the skills to provide what is required? Most of our educational staff have never worked in business.

    We do do some premium manufacturing. However, still the high tax system we have mean anything that doesn't have a high premium isn't going to be made here.
    When we were in the EU a whole lot of manufacturing investment was decided by the EU, and it wasn't going to be here; so it isn't. For example though we have some very good car manufacturing here, a whole lot of British badged is done elsewhere in Europe. Ask why?
    The Grenadier would have been built in Wales, but local government faffed over planning, so the EU gave a whopping incentive to use a French Mercedes surplus plant. First production isn't going to be built here now.

    Until our tax system makes us look ready for business, adventurous, able to do risk, and attractive for investors, then don't expect anything that positive.
    Keep voting for those whose can't think further than the NHS and how to prop up the Public sector, then don't be surprised we have decline.
    Muskett, not at all - your posts are always informative and interesting!

    I agree with what you say. It is also worth reflecting that in Germany, it is often engineers who are the CEOs of their companies whereas, here, it is often accountants!

    As a nation, we are also great inventors; more than 50% of the world's inventions have come, remarkably, from the UK - or close to it. Alas, it is usually other countries that exploit these and/or buy them.

    You are correct about the EU: they have given grants to many countries but none was provided here, when many manufacturers needed them.

    In addition, the govt has for decades allowed foreign companies to hoover up our best corporations: ICI, Hanson, Pilkington Glass, BOC, Cadbury, etc, being just a few of these. With Cadbury, the manufacturing plant was closed and relocated - as is often the case. In addition, we lose the crucial research and development operations - also relocated overseas. Not least, we lose the component manufacturers and suppliers, which are also sourced from the country of the company that took the British company over.

    It would be difficult to make all this up. Other countries would not permit it or, at least, would place impediments in the way.

    All of this is not helped by the mental outlook in some industries: the greatest possible return on the lowest capital investment. That is what happened, in our country, to great names such as BSA and Webley. And do we still make rifled barrels or are these now all imported from abroad? Given we were 150 years ahead of our competitors with the industrial revolution, we should be in pole position. Govts of all stripes have much to answer for.

    What you say about fuel costs in your later post is also true; we have some of the highest costs of energy in the world and yet an ample supply for decades ahead of our own fuel, which sits in the ground. One might be forgiven for thinking there was a deliberate de-industrialisation policy by the govt.
    Last edited by andrewM; 10-12-2022 at 12:32 PM.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,665
    Keeping more to Air Rifles.

    Great names like Webley and BSA went into decline for good reason. They failed to find orders, they failed to take risks and search for innovation, and their top management was pretty poor. Then again any profit that they might have made was taxed away anyhow. They lost all the worth they had, had nothing new to offer, and were just worn out and out of date. Investment takes profits to reinvest, and they couldn't even do that.
    By the 1980's they were just a name, which was sold on.

    Cadbury's sold for a colossal amount as it had value. Many companies are sold at top dollar, and there is no harm in that. Those funds raised can be invested again. The trick is for the funds raised to be reinvested here. But high taxation doesn't make investing here very attractive.
    The UK once had colossal investments and capital around the world. Much was sold off to pay for two World Wars debts. Being victorious isn't free. (Unless the USA, but at least they gave best mates banking rates.) (Hitler took Germany to war because the socialist policies were about to implode and Germany rapidly if not already bust.)

    Produce an air rifle where the costs are high then the products are not going to be cheap. UK manufactured gun stuff has to be premium. AA produce highly desirable but expensive rifles; the rifles people would love to have. Thankfully there are those who can afford these premium products. No one can make a "Best" London gun but us, but then only a hundred or so can be made in a year and there is a waiting list.
    .50 Cal machine gun barrels are made in the UK, because we make the best.

    We are making the best nuclear submarines in the world. They are not cheap, but at least in production. Why the Australians have binned the French who failed to make something as good; heck the French couldn't get the designs off the drawing-board.

    So we can do stuff. We just need to let people take risks which they will do if there is reward for doing so. If you are only going to get taxed to pieces for success then why take the risk? Or take it abroad. Or if in the EU have it given to your mates.
    Lefty governments be it Labour or recent Conservatives just don't get it; high taxation is a killer for UK industry.
    Last edited by Muskett; 09-12-2022 at 08:08 PM.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    gateshead
    Posts
    25,965
    i agree about the taxes

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Scarborough, N Yorks
    Posts
    18,999
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewM View Post
    Muskett, not at all - your posts are always informative and interesting!

    I agree with what you say. It is also worth reflecting that in Germany, it is often engineers who are the CEOs of their companies whereas, here, it is often accountants!

    As a nation, we are also great inventors; more than 50% of the world's inventions have come, remarkably, from the UK - or close to it. Alas, it is usually other countries that exploit these and/or buy them.

    You are correct about the EU: they have given grants to many countries but none was provided here, when many manufacturers needed them.

    In addition, the govt has for decades allowed foreign companies to hoover up our best corporations: ICI, Hanson, Pilkington Glass, BOC, Cadbury, etc, being just a few of these. With Cadbury, the manufacturing plant was closed and relocated - as is often the case. In addition, we lose the crucial research and development operations - also relocated overseas. Not least, we lose the component manufacturers and suppliers, which are also sourced from the country of the company that took the British company over.

    It would be difficult to make all this up. Other countries would not permit it or, at least, would place impediments in the way.

    All of this is not helped by the mental outlook in some industries: the greatest possible return on the lowest capital investment. That is what happened, in our country, to great names such as BSA and Webley. And do we still make rifled barrels or are these now all imported from abroad? Given we were 150 years ahead of our competitors with the industrial revolution, we should not be in pole position. Govts of all stripes have much to answer for.

    What you say about fuel costs in your later post is also true; we have some of the highest costs of energy in the world and yet an ample supply for decades ahead of our own fuel, which sits in the ground. One might be forgiven for thinking there was a deliberate de-industrialisation policy by the govt.
    Agreed 150%. The main problem in this country is useless management and short term horizons. It's too easy to cut real terms pay year on year, then bleat about unions when the workforce finally have their backs to the wall.

    To paraphrase, if not quote, John Caudwell, founder of Phones4U, "British management are nothing but a bunch of corporate tossers". Prove him wrong, Muskett.
    Walther CP-2 Match, FAS 604 & Tau 7 target pistols, Smith & Wesson 6" & 4" co2 pistol, Crosman 1377,
    Baikal IZH 53 pistol, Gamo CFX Royal,177, Umarex SA-10 CO2 pistol.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    mansfield
    Posts
    15
    to be fair it doesnt bother me the price of new guns .only because id rather buy 2nd hand..

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,665
    I wouldn't.

    But what is the point of unions if no one has a job? Strikers don't get paid for when striking, and I've just had a postie say the industrial action has already lost him £1k. Didn't effect the salary of his Union boss.
    Tell me what those going on strike are doing to warrant being paid more? Are they being more productive? (Yes, I know how hard they work.)

    Agreed everyone is hurting from higher taxation, higher fuel costs and higher cost of basics that high fuel costs brings, and add insult to injury the Bank of England hiking interest rates too fast for anyone to adjust to.
    I'd love everyone to get paid loads. How about stop everyone getting taxed so heavily so soon after they make a few bob?

    Public Servants didn't lose as much as some private individuals during the C-19 lockdowns. Who and what pays for the huge Public Sector we all enjoy? What is Public Debt Mountain other than the Government spending too much; well more than we can afford, mostly on the Public Sector?
    What is the Private Sector, just a cash cow to pay for the Public Sector? The Public Sector should reflect how successful the Private Sector is, and the latter isn't doing that well at present.
    The price of energy is for reasons we already discussed. That's world fuel politics and the very expensive domestic renewable policies we have to pander to the Climate Alarmists.

    How then to get the Private Sector to generate profits to pay loads of tax on? High taxation takes money that could be invested in finding those new industries. Taxing success puts people off even trying. High taxation puts off foreign investment coming here. High taxation guarantees decline.
    But so long as the Public Sector is OK its fine

    Lets all go on strike, have a revolution, as then we can all be very poor really fast.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Clevedon
    Posts
    421
    In the mid 1960’s the standard rate of income tax up to £2500 per year was 8s3d in the pound or 41.25 percent according to Hansard for 1966.
    Purchase tax was 33%
    We lived in a council house, my father was a council bricklayer, my mother worked 3 hours per day as a domestic at a special school.
    We didn’t have a car but we’re not short of money, the house was kept in good order and there was food on the table, coal for the fire, fuel for Dad’s greenhouses and enough for his gardening experiments. There always seemed to be good presents for birthdays and Christmas. We didn’t need child care, there was always someone around to take care of the kids when we weren’t at school.
    Now tax is 20%, half what it was in the sixties, and VAT has replaced purchase tax, now also at a lower rate. There are tax allowances that did not exist 50 years ago. So less of an individual’s income is going into the public sector. Yet now it takes two full incomes to put a roof over a family. A single person in a respected job like nursing after paying rent has to resort to food banks, which have only existed for the last twenty years or so. In the sixties a nurse could afford rent and food.
    So since an individual is paying less into the public sector than before, why are we poorer? Let’s see:
    Banks and estate agents have pushed up the price of property by much more than inflation or wages. They managed to con the gullible public that because they were pushing up the price of the property the owners were better off, the idiots believed that even when they “moved up the property ladder” and exchanged their extortionate mortgage for a crippling one. By the way they hate people like me - I have lived in the same small house for over thirty years and now have no mortgage. The largest cost to a family is accommodation. What I paid for my house in in 1989 is about one-sixth of the latest house property valuation. I am certainly not earning six times now what I was then. A person coming into my job at the grade I was then would be on about three times the salary I was then.
    People at the top of the companies have considered it perfectly acceptable to restrict the pay increases of their staff to “what the company can afford” while giving themselves and the shareholders higher percentage increases. As a result the disparity in pay between top and bottom of a company in percentage terms is now higher than Victorian times.
    “Public” transport has been placed into private hands with a government mandate for annual fare rises above the rate of inflation whereas most salary increases are below the rate of inflation. Therefore people who rely on public transport see their travel costs increase yearly in real terms. Conversely as the price of travel goes up to pay directors and shareholders bus companies say they cannot afford to keep rural routes going. This means that poorer people in rural environments have to shop locally, often at small shops at premium prices as the small shops do not have the buying power of the supermarkets.
    As has been alluded to Margaret Thatcher stated a policy of pushing the country to a service rather than a manufacturing industry, but there is more room for a workforce in manufacturing. As a result we rely more on imports that come at a higher cost.
    And of course St Margaret introduced the poll tax, now called the council tax, to replace rates while taking the business rates away from the councils so over the years the council’s incomes have gone down meaning that local services can only be provided by councils cutting staff, eating into reserves and heading toward bankruptcy.
    Anyway there is a lot more that can be stated as the real reasons we are poorer now than we were 50 years ago but the main reason is not the cost of the public sector. If anything it is the benefit of a free market economy or unrestrained capitalism.

    Eric

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    gateshead
    Posts
    25,965
    the world has gone mad

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,665
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •