This issue has become irrelevant. The wealthy are no longer excluded and the childless portion of the question was removed long ago.

Was the childless aspect because a GOOOH is encouraging families. That would certainly influence people to have/start families.

Their is also a statistic floating around that a childless couple is richer than a couple with a family, this being do to the childless couple has a higher disposable income.

Were those any reasons going into the original decision?

We have defined wealthy as possessing assets of more than 250 times the median income, or roughly $11.5 million. The childless component of the quesion has been removed.

-- 6/9/2009 12:12:09 AM.

There is an issue of what would be considered 'wealthy' and 'childless'. 

Wealthy is most certainly a variable by region. [NY & San Francisco vs. McDowell County West Virginia & Sedan, Kansas]

Childless is most certainly a variable by age and life circumstance. [Grandparents]

How are these things decided?

Agreed. Childless has been removed from question #76.

I'm guessing the original thought was the childless couples didn't have to spend money on raising children (which we all know is an enormous expense), so childless couples already should already have a large nestegg and can afford to have their payments cut in half.  I disagree, however.  Childless couples should not be lumped in with the wealthy.

We hear you that these should be separated into two. How would you suggest we word them, and which would you deem more important if you could only include one?

Given how extremely well thought out the vast majority of this entire goooh movement seems to be, I assume there must be some compelling reason for grouping the wealthy and the childless.  For whatever reason, I just cant seem to discern what it is that makes these two groups similar. 

Please explain the underlying reason(s) behind this grouping of these two categories of people.