Ballet.co Postings Pages

 Some Special Threads:
  GPDTalk about George Piper Dances ! NEW !
  NBTTalk about Northern Ballet Theatre
  SBTalk about Scottish Ballet
  ENBTalk about English National Ballet
  BRBTalk about Birmingham Royal Ballet
  TodaysLinks - worldwide daily dance links
  Ballet.co GetTogethers - meetings and drinks...

  Help on New Postings

Subject: "Changes in the Charitable Tax Relief scheme" Archived thread - Read only
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend    
Conferences What's Happening Topic #450
Reading Topic #450
eugene merrett

12-01-00, 03:06 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail eugene%20merrett Click to send private message to eugene%20merrett Click to add this user to your buddy list  
"Changes in the Charitable Tax Relief scheme"
   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.

  Printer-friendly page | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
  RE: Changes in the Charitable Tax Relief scheme Susie 13-01-00 1
     RE: Changes in the Charitable Tax Relief scheme Eugene Merrett 13-01-00 2

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

13-01-00, 10:56 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Susie Click to send private message to Susie Click to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Changes in the Charitable Tax Relief scheme"
In response to message #0
   re your final paragraph and that old chestnut about "Poor people subsidising the rich". Agreed that in principle that is unacceptable but when we are talking about subsidy to the tune of a matter of pence per head per year (a regularly quoted statistic), I feel that tax payers don't really have a right to expect very much in the way of access. If the subsidy were doubled most people wouldn't notice any difference in their pocket but the potential drop in ticket prices could be substantial. That seems to me to make economic and political sense.

  Printer-friendly page | Top
Eugene Merrett

13-01-00, 01:08 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Eugene%20Merrett Click to send private message to Eugene%20Merrett Click to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Changes in the Charitable Tax Relief scheme"
In response to message #1
   I do take your point - but the overall public expenditure for art is considerable. Moreover given the small number of seats available at the ROH only tiny minority can benefit.

But it is more a matter of principle then anything else. I am not against public subsidy in the current political climate but I would like to see a gradual change to private funding eventually.

A privately funded ROH is not answerable to whims of vote grabbing politicians or philistine Treasury Officials or sleazy newspaper campaigns. That must be a desirable situation.

  Printer-friendly page | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Questions or problems regarding this bulletin board should be directed to Bruce Marriott