The government's lack of joined up thinking in regards to arts charities goes beyond the impact of restricted tax relief (Treasury's philanthropy plans 'blindsided' culture secretary, 10 April). The chancellor proposes the removal of VAT exemption from alterations to listed buildings, which threatens Arvon's £3.3m project to redevelop The Hurst in Shropshire, the former home of John Osborne. Arvon, the national charity that owns the writer's house, won an award worth £1.8m from Arts Council England to turn the mansion into a place where writers, many of them young, disadvantaged people, will be encouraged to write and improve their opportunities in life. The house, a Georgian mansion, has been derelict since Helen Osborne's death in 2004 and we can only use a small section of the property. But the unexpected announcement by Osborne has added up to £250,000 to the bill to breathe life into the house, and may force us to abandon our plans.
How does this decision sit with the culture secretary's call to support philanthropy in the arts, or the education secretary's crusade to help young people read and write better? The government needs an urgent rethink on this punishment it has meted out to charities like ours.
Ruth Borthwick
Chief executive, Arvon Foundation
• Don't allow the furore about the rich and tax to muddle your thinking about charitable giving by describing gift aid tax relief as "handing to the rich to indulge their philanthropic activities" (Editorial, 12 April). Of course the rich should pay more tax, and gift aid is a form of public subsidy, but philanthropic giving also benefits the public.
We must operate in the world as it is rather than the utopia we might yearn for. Britons as a whole, not just the rich, have not been prepared to pay enough tax since the 80s and have consistently voted against more public expenditure. Philanthropy has had to provide some of the shortfall. At Tate, for example, the government grant fell from 80% of budget to 38% within a decade. Tate Modern would not have been built and Tate would not be flourishing today without philanthropy, and gift aid has been fundamental to fundraising success. Who benefits? More than 7 million annual visitors, over 20 million online visitors and the economy as a whole through tourism.
I am a member of the governing council of the Royal College of Music. We have lost our teaching grant. In addition to the £25m we need to raise for the building, we must now find extra scholarship funds to ensure that poor students can afford to pay their fees to fulfil their potential as the musicians of tomorrow. Our task will be immeasurably harder if gift tax relief is capped. We need the rich to fund our poor students because the taxpayer won't and we need to encourage them to be more generous. For the Guardian to talk of indulging them is almost as myopic as the Treasury branding them as tax dodgers.
John Nickson
London
• It is disappointing for us as campaigners to see the short-term income needs of large charities taking precedence over our work to build a better society (Report, 13 April). A decent society should not have to depend on the largesse of the super-rich for its public services, cultural life or anti-poverty drive. Far from building accountability and democracy, philanthropy will only ever allow the funding of "pet projects".
Tax exemptions for the super-rich have helped foster inequality. The removal of such exemptions must form a small part of a wider quest for tax justice which would allow governments everywhere to provide public and cultural goods accountable to their societies. It is time for the sort of very large charities who will be effected by the proposed tax exemption measures to stand up and be counted: the changes you purport to want cannot come about through your endless expansion, but by economic justice. Will you support justice over charity, public over private, democracy or dependency?
Nick Dearden Jubilee Debt Campaign
John Christensen Tax Justice Network
• Surely if new rules come in saying that the amount given to charity cannot be written off tax bills, it would prove that the "philanthropist" isn't a tax dodger. At present, some wealthy donors use the tax relief to gain prestige without it actually costing them any money. This way it would be genuine giving. Of course, if wealthy individuals didn't dodge tax to the extent reported then there would be more money collected for public services anyway, meaning that there would be less of a need for some of the really good causes to rely on charity to survive.
Doug Morgan
Birmingham