* A new study will be released tomorrow on older uninsured people…
It finds that 13.3 percent of 50 to 64 year old Illinoisans — 287,084 adults — are uninsured. When adults in this age range who are officially poor are considered (an individual earning $10,400 or less a year, a couple earning $14,000 or less), 44 percent are found to lack health insurance (68,406 people).
And check this out…
The report breaks down data for Illinois by the legislative districts in the state. Senate district 13 has the highest number of uninsured 50 to 64 year olds, 8,706 residents, followed by district 17 with 8,482 and district 14 with 8,170.
Senate District 13 is President-elect Barack Obama’s former district.
* Meanwhile, another new study shows that last year only 0.9 percent of estates owed federal estate taxes in Illinois. That ain’t much. The reason the study was released…
In 2009 the per-spouse exemption is scheduled to increase to $3.5 million and in 2010 the estate tax is scheduled to disappear altogether for one year. Advocates for tax fairness have called on Congress to act before 2010 to prevent the estate tax from disappearing. If the estate tax is allowed to disappear, they fear, Congress will find it more difficult to resist the lobbyists who will insist that repeal of the estate tax be made permanent.
President-elect Barack Obama has proposed to make permanent the estate tax rules that will be in effect in 2009 under current law, including the $3.5 million per-spouse exemption. This would be an improvement in the sense that it would prevent the estate tax from disappearing. But it would be a regressive and costly giveaway to the very wealthiest families in America, because it would mean that the tax would affect even fewer estates than it does now. […]
…family farms and other closely held businesses get additional breaks from the estate tax (in addition to the exemptions all estates get) including a provision that allows the tax to be paid off over a period of 14 years. The estate tax has always been confined to serving its actual purpose — reducing extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a few super-wealthy families, and asking these families to contribute to the society that made their wealth possible.
Here’s the Illinois breakdown. Click the pic for a larger image…
* And it doesn’t appear as though the “wealthy” are gonna squawk much about higher taxes, at least that’s not how they voted this year. From The Hill…
Take a guess. Which demographic group doubled its share of the electorate from 2004 to 2008?
Here’s a hint. It’s the same segment that increased its support for the Democratic presidential candidate more than any other.
If you answered younger voters or Latinos, you would be wrong, though we will discuss both below.
Stumped?
Americans who make over $200,000 a year doubled their share of the electorate and, while John Kerry lost that group by 28 points, Barack Obama won them by six — a 34-point shift in the margin — the biggest movement recorded in the exit poll.
In fairness, while the wealthiest segment did double its share of the electorate, it increased from just 3 percent to 6 percent. However, those who make over $100,000 constituted 26 percent of the electorate in 2008, compared to 18 percent in 2004 — nearly a 50 percent increase. Obama tied with this quarter of the electorate; Kerry had lost it by 17 points.
* Related…
* Health insurance sticker shock hits consumers
* AARP’s stealth fees often sting seniors with costlier insurance
* Durbin Concerned Relief To Lenders Could Hurt Student Borrowers