AN ACT relating to designation of income tax refund.
If enacted, this bill would amend Kentucky's tax code to include the tax refund designation for these contributions. While it will not affect the overall tax liability of participants, it may lead to an increase in funding for the Alzheimer’s Association, which would be used exclusively for educational programs and continuous support services like a 24/7 helpline. This could significantly enhance the resources available for caregivers, professionals, and individuals impacted by dementia, addressing an important public health concern.
House Bill 21 proposes the establishment of a mechanism allowing taxpayers in Kentucky to designate part of their income tax refunds to the Greater Kentucky and Southern Indiana Chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association. This would, starting from the taxable year of 2025, enable individuals filing income tax returns to contribute up to the full amount of their respective refunds, thereby directing funds specifically toward Alzheimer's education programs and support services. The intent behind this bill is to bolster community engagement and support for those affected by Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.
The sentiment surrounding HB 21 appears to be largely positive, as it provides a new avenue for taxpayers to contribute directly to a charitable organization that addresses critical health issues in the community. This type of legislation resonates well with constituents who are supportive of healthcare initiatives and community welfare programs. Advocates for Alzheimer’s research and support likely view it as a meaningful step in enhancing resources for those in need, promoting a narrative of community responsibility and solidarity.
While the prevailing opinion around HB 21 is positive, potential points of contention could arise regarding the diversion of tax revenue, albeit indirectly, towards a designated charity. Concerns may be raised over the efficacy of such tax check-off programs as a sustainable means of funding, rather than relying on state allocations. Critics might argue that these measures do not adequately address the broader systemic issues around Alzheimer’s care and funding, merely offering a ‘band-aid’ solution to a much larger problem.