price of new guns

[andrewM]

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.

[Muskett]

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.

[rapidresponse1]

i agree about the taxes

[derekm]

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.

[Muskett]

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.

[EricP]

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

[rapidresponse1]

the world has gone mad

[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?

[simesgee]

Banks and estate agents have pushed up the price of property by much more than inflation or wages. ...

Don't think so. Supply and demand. Plus low interest rates.
So - as an example - UK population in 1982 when I bought my fist flat was about 54 million.
Today (does anybody know?) it's about 10-15 million more. And a higher proportion being single for longer.
So, as we don't want to cover the country in concrete for houses, and don't have the infrastructure to do so anyway we have less houses per captita. And don't blame Maggie either because we are talking bottoms in houses and it doesn't matter where these people come from and who lives in the sold off council houses, although it probable it isn't the strata of society of working people that we would like..
So, next low interest rates. Banks don't define this - the state of the economy and World prices and factors such as inflation do. Low interest rates mean that you can borrow more. So now (or previous to the Liz and Kwarzy show) people would borrow huge amounts until their eyes popped just to get on the property ladder. You had to.
All this kind of makes sense - until the interest rate goes up, which has happened before, and left a lot of poor souls in negative equity. Which very possible will happen again.
Not sure what the hell that's got to do with the price of potatoes or, indeed, air rifles

[Muskett]

Most homes are occupied.
Even Council Houses have stopped having a long term tenant having a family house once all the children have left. Te policy was hated but how can subsidised housing have half empty properties when young families need them?
Second homes are on the hit list now. Many a second home is a flat in London to work from, and a home with space in the countryside. Some are holiday homes for that space, that no rabbit hutch of a city flat can give.
Many people retiring downsize to clear any remaining mortgage and increase their pension pot. They move out of the cities to where house prices are lower which is usually were there are fewer jobs. Why Scotland is filling with retired people, and its NHS creaking under the pressure.
There will be some price drop from interest rate rises, but the only thing that will bring prices down are more houses to meet the demand. Those houses built where the work is.

Gun sales are all about supply and demand too. Gun sales will go down if the cost gets too expensive for people to buy. The market size isn't exactly huge, especially when finding somewhere to shoot isn't so easy. Shooting is a great sport and a lot cheaper than golf. But the government keep finding more barriers to entry for new shooter. Scottish Air Rifle licensing is such a barrier and was politically motivated. It has achieved nothing.
Older shooters have most of the guns they like already. Most guns are too well made. People can wear out their cars, but rifles? Some but not many as most can last a lifetime if not two.

I doubt new guns will get cheaper, just from the cost of living. Second hand will follow in the wake of the prices of new ones. Some second hand will struggle to find a market at all. SbyS shotguns, and Full bore inexpensive rifles barely hold any second hand value.
In truth without the US market then the Gun manufacturing trade would be in real trouble. Brilliantly the US has found love for Air Rifles again, and a few premium British makers can exist off that. They wouldn't survive on UK and Europe markets alone.

[rapidresponse1]

they hit some with unocupied rooms where i live with bedroom tax