Possibility of donations in an educational site
You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.
"You could always put cash in an envelope and mail it, with no return address on the envelope. Any form of anonymous donation that I can think of has the risk that if the money is intercepted and stolen, you'll never know. Also, you won't get a receipt that you can use for tax purposes. You could try sending this organization a note saying, ""I think you're doing great work, but this donation was a one-time gift. Please take me off your mailing list."" I don't know if it would work, but it's worth a try. By the way, the problem is worse than you think: charities share mailing lists. Once one charity has your name, they'll often share it with other related charities. For example, I give to the Catholic Family Association even though I am a Protestant -- I think they're doing good work that Catholics, Protestants, and people of many other faiths could support. But over the years I started getting fundraising letters from other Catholic charities, and then from groups trying to spread Catholicism, and now I'm getting mailings from groups whose stated purpose is to oppose Protestants. I laugh and throw away the letters, but I know some people get really bothered by this sort of thing. ""I'm pretty sure that the total cost of the mailings including postage has now exceeded the $20 I donated."" I've occassionally thought of sending some trivial donation, $5 or $10, to some political or activist group that I totally oppose, just so they'll spend way more than that over the course of the next few years asking me for more money. :-) Plus, they'll send me letters that will tell me what the opposition is up to." Except, restricting how the economy can be controlled is a slippery slope into financial control of the nation by outside interests.  The real issue is that every extreme becomes a problem, and trying to block every extreme is futile.  Controls should impede, but not completely stop, extremes.  The impedance method should return the force against it as support or growth for the nation.  Financial growth of any outside interest connected to the government or in this country should bring more and more wealth into the nation, while slowing the growth of the financial extremes, but never stopping it.  Special Interest groups need to return to the country a share of what they gain through their work with the government and our people.  Religious groups should return money and support of the lower class.  Women’s advocacy groups need to return value for their gains.  The NRA needs to return value for its gains.  The poorer populace should return work for the country in return for education, health care, housing, food, and wages.  Harder and smarter work, better progress through education, should be rewarded with better benefits and eventual financial “freedom” (there is no true freedom in a world of limited resources and competition, so the idea of “true freedom” is ridiculous).  We should, however, endeavor to give as much freedom as possible.  There should be an uncomfortable minimum below which a person may only fall if they refuse to work and get educated. In some jurisdictions you can donate the development rights. You and the family still own it, but nothing can ever be built on it. In some cases you will still be able to build a cabin or similar structure on a few acres, but the bulk has to be left natural.  The advantage is that by giving away the logging or other development rights the land loses much of its value, thus reducing the tax value of the land. There are some hoops that you need to jump through, but this is not an unusual transaction. Another choice it to see if the land touches any similar conservation areas. It can be possible to donate the land to the government or other conservation group, but it would revert to the family if they ever tried to sell or develop the land. Because you don't own it you would not have to pay taxes, but hikers, canoeists and campers could still use it. By donating the land to the same organization a your neighbors it can streamline the paperwork for people who want to through hike. "BobbyScon's answer really covers this, but perhaps isn't sufficiently explicit.  Reason 1 of the quotation is the largest, by far: Get an Immediate Tax Deduction, but Give Later: You get the tax deduction when the foundation is funded, then make your charitable gifts over time. Having a ""personal"" foundation means that you make donations whenever it is appropriate from a personal finance point of view, but then actually perform the charitable giving in a time that is convenient. So you fund the foundation on Dec. 31, say; that gets the money out of your hands, and out of your taxable income, for the prior tax year.  Then you're not required to do anything else with that money until a time and place where it's convenient to you. In many cases, they set it up not as a foundation but as a Donor Advised Fund.  These are of late becoming extremely popular among the wealthy, largely the ease of setting them up and the above. The other major advantage of a Donor Advised Fund is simplicity in tax season: you have exactly one charitable donation recipient, with one receipt (or one set of them if you donate over time)." No. You should only donate appreciated stock. If you own a stock at a loss, you can only deduct the FMV (fair market value) when you donate. Instead, you should sell it, take the loss on your taxes, and donate the cash. They are certainly only suggesting that the money you pay to recycle the bulbs is tax deductible as a donation, assuming that they are indeed a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Donations of goods are only deductible at fair market value. Light bulbs that no longer light up have no market value, so only the payment could possibly be deductible. I am confused as to why the author thinks people wouldn't do this.  If target wants to hand out free money they can be my guest.  edit: Target, PM me if you're interested in this sort of arrangement. And where is the money going from these collections? I hope this doesn't become some money collecting scheme that doesn't do much to help the environment.  If it's being collected by any government organization, most likely the money will first pay the salary of some goddamn bureuocrat.    Would be best if the money went to some scientific organization or to scientists or researchers...wishful thinking probably