I thought it was a good letter. Too many people start off in a dramatic way (I suppose to get reader’s attention at the outset). This letter, however, was logical, with the writer being very modest about herself. I hope it is proving to be  successful

The Gift Aid version costs approxcimately 10 per cent more than the standard charge. A basic rate taxpayer, therefore, can take comfort from the fact that, by paying about 10 per cent more, the Gardens are getting, from HMRC, 25 per cent of the amount he or she pays.

For higher rate taxpayers, there is a tax saving of 20 per cent on the grossed up cost of the ticket – provided they remember to claim it in their tax return. I get the feeling that many taxpayers in that bracket simply do not bother to make a note at the time, so that they can include it in a subsequent tax return.

As one might expect, this has generated plenty of fury and sharp words. Curiously, I have not seen or heard of any of that from philanthropists. It appears to have been generated by those working for individual charities, and organisations representing charities. I doubt whether those individuals have been giving 25 per cent of their income to charities. But, of course, their own salaries derive from the income of chartities.

I would expect that most ‘ordinary’ people do not give 25 per cent of their income to charity, let alone £50,000 if that is higher.

We are, therefore, thinking chiefly of ‘the rich’. In the past, it has been possible, under existing legislation, for a rich individual to divest themselves of capital to a charitable cause – and pay very little income tax, if any.

Such people have been lauded for their philanthropy. But, of course, they have not been paying their ’share’ (whatever it is) of the tax burden to keep the country going.

The Budget proposal seems to aim at holding a fair balance between the needs of charities and the Treasury. If enacted, it  should ensure that the whole body of taxpayers will not have to make up the rich person’s ’share’ of the tax burden, because the latter’s reliefs will be limited to 25 per cent of their income.

Everybody has to fight their own corner. We have come a long way with Gift Aid. Before it, single one-off donations were not eligible for tax relief. This proposal, in principle, seems to be fair to both sides. And the great majority of donors to charity will not be affected by it.

The latest request is to help people spend a penny. Yes, we are talking toilets – the speciality of the charity Wherever the Need. The letter starts off by saying it is difficult to imagine waking up in the morning (before it becomes light) so as to find a secluded bush to carry out one’s ‘call of nature’. All put very delicately – but of vital importance. The charity says that, by the end of this year, 50,000 people will be using sanitation facilities which it has built.

This is no ‘quick fix’. We are thinking of ecological sanitation units (commonly known as composting toilets) – with an expected lifetime of 30 years. The letter points out that, at £230 each, these toilets are clean and hygienic. They protect water sources and the local environment from pollution, and they produce rich,  valuable compost.

All in all, Wherever the Need has produced a good ‘ask’ – sound, sensible stuff. During the course of a year, they hope to deliver toilets to 1,000 families. We all know that is only a drop in the pan, but nowhere is it more true than in the developing world that every little helps.

Is the electoral register the answer for checking addresses? In theory, the answer must be yes. After all, this is one of the methods used by credit rating agencies, and the financial world in general, to help check that we are who we say we are. But they (quite rightly) have access to the unexpurgated electoral register. Charities and others have to use an edited version. Anybody on the main register can choose not to be on the edited version which is available to any Tom, Dick or Harry. I, personally, have made such a choice.

I am told that the edited version has only about half the names which are on the main register. And yet charities are up in arms about the proposal to withdraw it. In practice, there are other databases, maintained by organisations in the direct mail business. And my guess would be that some of them are likely to be better, overall, than the edited electoral register.

So far as I can remember I had never received anything from them – until they sent me a fundraising  letter to an address which I left nearly eight years ago. Chance has meant I received it. Bearing in mind that many people do move every few years, using a list more than eight years old may mean the majority of addressees are no longer at their respective addresses – which seems quite a waste of money.

The simple answer: Don’t try to economise by using out-of-date lists. Get up to date!

This, sadly, is one of the many diseases for which, still, there is no known cure. Known as “The Rag Doll Illness”, because it blocks the muscular triggering system, and its ignition system no longer works properly, the pitfall would be to become too technical in fund-raising literature. This is avoided by the use of a simple little booklet – with pictures of puppets.

I think the Association has done a good job in describing the illness, and I get the impression that it does a good job in supporting sufferers and their families, and in supporting the medical neurological research carried out by the MG Research Group based at the John Radcliffe Hospital.

The charity says: “we risk losing many valuable scientists like Dr Hopkins if we can’t provide emergency funding grants for those whose funding has run out”.

The last published accounts of the charity showed spending during the year of just under £7 million, with a fund of more than £750,000 being carried into the following year.

I would have thought that a charity in that situation would know, from experience, that, from time to time, extra funding is needed, and that it would make sure it was in a position to respond. Of course, the charity needs funds – to meet all kinds of research costs. But I don’t believe it is playing fair with donors to suggest that certain research projects will have to be terminated if the funds do not come in by a certain date. It would be irresponsible for the charity to put itself  on such a knife edge. Obviously, if there is a good response to the appeal, it will help the charity to fund further important projects in the future. What worries me is the pressure put on well-meaning donors to pay up straight away – or else.