I refer to Norman Lebrect article in the Daily Telegraph (or Darcey Telegraph as it carries so many pictures of the famous dancer)
I am surprised that the chancellors decison to allow any donation to attract tax relief has gone unnoticed. This could start a US style donation culture where art institution are primarily funded by private donation.
As stated in a previous posting US households contribute twice as much per household then in the UK. But this is largly due to the fact that charitable donation are tax deductable in the US.
Now the law in the UK is similar to the US maybe in time donations to ROH will significantly increase.
The difference in the US and UK tax law is purely pyschological except over the repective tax rates.
In the US one gets a reduction in thier tax bill when one donates to charities. In England there is not tax relief to the doner but the donee recieves all the tax that is nominally paid on the income that given away. But if you think about it carefully there is no difference.
Assuming a tax rate of 50% - a UK resident gifting £500 results in a £1000 total donation to the charitable institute becaue the goverment chips in the 50% tax. A US resident who gifts £1000 to a charitable institutes will get a reduction of £500 from his/her taxes but the institution gets the full £1000. The net result is the same.
But the main difference is that in the UK relief is only at basic rate (23%) whilst in the US relief is available at the higher rates which are about E-50.
But I am optimistic that in time donations will play a major part in the ROH. Eventually I would like to see the end of publicly funded opera and ballet as it really is the ordinary people subsidising the richer people (let not deny the fact that majority of opera and ballet goers are far richer then the average tax payer). I not sure that this is morally justifiable.