|Byron, we're still looking into some of these things.|
I'm sorry to hear that you wouldn't lose any sleep over SOLO disappearing tomorrow. I think if you really find so little value in SOLO, we're probably not going to expect large contributions from you anyway. Those who find value in it, and live by the trader principle, find ways to contribute. Sometimes financially.
As far as seeing what your money is going towards, you can pay to keep the site hosted for another month. Or, if you want to make a donation for a something more specific, you can write me.
Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole tax deduction thing. When you donate to a non-profit, the government doesn't tax you on it. So if you gave TOC $100, and say your tax rate was 25%, you wouldn't be charged the $25. At the end of the day (actually tax year), TOC gets $100, and you only had to spend $75. The incentive given to non-profits is that they are essentially more efficient for donations.
Now, since SOLO isn't a non-profit, if you gave us $100, you'd still have to pay the $25 dollars. But if you pay us $75 dollars, it comes out to the same spending on your part, but we only get $75 dollars, instead of $100.
Given that tax scenario, your donation is more efficiently given to TOC by a ratio of 100:75, or 4:3. Sounds fine. But that assumes TOC is the equivalent of SOLO. If they are, then 4:3. If SOLO is say twice as good as TOC as far as you're concerned, then you the ratio change to 100:150, or 2:3. It then becomes more efficient to donate to SOLO. Four times better than TOC? 100:300, or 1:3. If you think TOC is pretty much worthless, the ratio keeps getting better in our favor.
There's some added complexity, of course. If you don't donate enough in a year, than you can't itemize your deductions, and that pushes it to a 1:1 ratio with SOLO (assuming no preference in organizations).
That's my tax lesson for the day. Comments?