No tax paid by Rolls Royce in 2012
Discussion
el stovey said:
London424 said:
el stovey said:
traxx said:
Dont British Airways buy GE?
BA have (or have ordered) RR engines on the B787
B777-200
B767
B757
B747
A380
IAG has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange.
Virgin Atlantic have RR on
A380
A340-600
B787
Thomson,Monarch,Thomas Cook, Jet2, Titan all have RR on
B757
B787
Then consider all the Armed forces Rolls Royce powered bits of kit. All the power stations, ships, offshore platforms that have RR gas turbines.
I think it's likely RR are selling plenty of engines in the UK.
My comments were in response to
traxx said:
Dont British Airways buy GE?
Easyjet planes are Swiss owned iirc
So actually all their sales are overseas
Easyjet planes are Swiss owned iirc
So actually all their sales are overseas
Edited by el stovey on Monday 4th March 23:46
Secondly not many Aircraft operators buy their aircraft. They buy them on finance.
Other than that, all perfectly relevant points.
munky said:
What I find funny, is that the same people (or media) moaning that Starbucks should pay tax where their sales are, also seem to be moaning that Rolls Royce should be paying tax where they are based, not where their sales are. Er, right.
I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?
RR on the aero side has effectively been govt funded since it was founded. Except that back in the good old days we regarded having *our* own world leading aero engine maker as a good thing and worth putting money into. Old fashioned idea I know.I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?
toppstuff said:
munky said:
elster said:
Secondly not many Aircraft operators buy their aircraft. They buy them on finance.
Indeed, often owned by investment banks. Crankedup should remember that next time he's on a plane I see RBS owns 9 ships including 3 oil tankers and 2 LNG.
Its my understanding that aero engines are not usually owned by the airlines but are leased - often on separate agreements to the airframe - on 'power by the hour' flexible price leases, so presumably the engines are sold to asset finace companies, who could be based anywhere.
Happy to be proved wrong by any aviation experts on here
Happy to be proved wrong by any aviation experts on here
AlexS said:
IIRC there are no lease companies involved with Power by the Hour. The engines are supplied direct from RR.
Pretty sure Power By The Hour does not involve engines, only servicing.A lot of the major engineering is outsourced, so I would expect the contracts would be through the contractors rather then the airline being exposed to them.
munky said:
who wants to tell him?
Oh good, someone has.
Pop into their factory, which is in England by the way, and ask to buy a car. See what happens
Last time i was in their factory they did have a rather lovely car in the lobby. I think it's owner wanted it back to go on your so it's not there any more. It was heading for 100 years old mind you.Oh good, someone has.
Pop into their factory, which is in England by the way, and ask to buy a car. See what happens
DJRC said:
munky said:
What I find funny, is that the same people (or media) moaning that Starbucks should pay tax where their sales are, also seem to be moaning that Rolls Royce should be paying tax where they are based, not where their sales are. Er, right.
I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?
RR on the aero side has effectively been govt funded since it was founded. Except that back in the good old days we regarded having *our* own world leading aero engine maker as a good thing and worth putting money into. Old fashioned idea I know.I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?
As it currently stands the reason RR has paid no corporation tax is because it spent £670 million in R&D in the UK. If we want R&D spending in the UK then a tax break of 130% is a good idea and it's a good idea for one of the largest spenders to take this tax break.
Edited by Talksteer on Friday 8th March 00:09
Talksteer said:
DJRC said:
munky said:
What I find funny, is that the same people (or media) moaning that Starbucks should pay tax where their sales are, also seem to be moaning that Rolls Royce should be paying tax where they are based, not where their sales are. Er, right.
I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?
RR on the aero side has effectively been govt funded since it was founded. Except that back in the good old days we regarded having *our* own world leading aero engine maker as a good thing and worth putting money into. Old fashioned idea I know.I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?
As it currently stands the reason RR has paid no corporation tax is because it spent £670 million in R&D in the UK. If we want R&D spending in the UK then a tax break of 130% is a good idea and it's a good idea for one of the largest spenders to take this tax break.
Edited by Talksteer on Friday 8th March 00:09
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff