HB 1154 introduced by Rep. Koch defines the concept of a “health care sharing ministry” and gives it certain tax advantages.
A health care sharing ministry: 1) consists only of people who share similar & sincerely held religious beliefs; 2) is a 501(c)(3) organization;
3) facilitates the matching of people who have financial or medical needs with other people who have the present ability to assist those needy people – financing one through the donations of the other; 4) provides for contributions that don’t require contributors to assume risk or continue to promise to pay; 5) provides a monthly statement that shows the total amount of donations and the amount actually provided for medical assistance; and includes a statement with specified language that disclaims any notion that the organization is an insurance company or that payment of medical bills by the organization is anything other than voluntary.
It excludes from income for tax purposes any money an individual receives from a health care sharing ministry or any money paid by an employer on the individual’s behalf to the ministry or “because the individual is a participant of a health care sharing ministry.”
I’ve never really gotten the tax exempt status for religious entities – as a practical matter, any way. As a historical matter, I understand how things came about. If they’re doing good works, we should exempt the funding that goes toward those operations, regardless of philosophy. If they’re not doing good works, then they shouldn’t get tax exemptions regardless of their religious doctrine or other philosophy. Same goes here – if folks want to donate to provide medical assistance to others, great. I have no problem with making such donations tax exempt. But making the exemption contingent on the organization subscribing to a religious doctrine of some sort makes no sense to me.
I’m wondering why religious (or “faith”) based affinity groups are singled out for accusations of discrimination?
After all there are age-based groups that secure discounts for members (though not necessarily tax exemption.) AARP is the obvious example.
Union members also get special perks such as higher wages and overall compensation packages. Members of Congress have their perks as well, some obscenely substantial. Creating perks for affinity groups is, in fact, big business.
The most obvious of tax-related groups are those designated by income: The more you earn the higher your tax liability.
My conclusion: While I believe favoring religious health-care sharing ministries is unfair, it is not unusual. The policy could be tempered by including all non-profit sharing organizations.
Man, I read the headline as “Mistresses” and thought “Dang! Indiana’s getting really progressive now!”
Sincerely held, huh? You know what they say in show biz. The most important thing is sincerity. Once you’ve learned to fake that, the rest is easy.
Yawn. Nobody cares about state taxation.