Education Minister Batt O'Keeffe is about to kickstart an 18-month root and branch review of the third-level sector. Most attention will focus on the controversial option of reintroducing undergraduate fees. O'Keeffe mentioned the possibility of bringing back fees earlier this month. The minister was reported as insisting that, in the event, only "the better off" would have to pay. What might constitute 'better off' was left somewhat vague. O'Keeffe did express the view that no family earning less than €100,000 would pay fees with the threshold bar – in the minister's words – being set much higher than that income level. "I would rather be looking at people who can afford to pay and there are many millionaires in this country who can afford to pay," he said.

Millionaires were not on the agenda when the fees issue was last debated back in 2003. Indeed, the then taoiseach Bertie Ahern was non-committal about charging undergraduates. But Ahern did speculate that most likely only students from families earning more than €200,000 a year would be charged.

The debate raises an interesting question – what do we understand by 'better off' in 2008? Put another way, at what level of income (and asset ownership) does somebody now qualify as being 'rich'? They have an idea of the answer to this in the US. Earlier this month, John McCain and Barack Obama were both asked to define 'rich'. In Obama's world, if you are earning more than $250,000 (€170,000) then you are doing well, even if he did qualify his remark: "I'm not suggesting that everybody that is making over $250,000 is living on Easy Street." Nevertheless, $250,000 is a benchmark for the Democratic presidential candidate who is proposing a modest tax increase for those taking home more than that annual income. Those earning less than $150,000 a year would get a tax cut. "What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code," Obama says.

McCain has a different definition of 'rich'. "I think if you're talking about income – how about $5m?" McCain suggested before realising the import of his remarks. He immediately started backtracking: "It doesn't matter really what my definition of 'rich' is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes."

Figures supplied by the Revenue Commissioners last week show that in 2007, there were 126,200 people in Ireland who had incomes between €100,000 and €500,000; another 3,400 people earned between €500,000 and €1m while 1,200 people took home income above €1m. The estimated figures for 2008 forecast that 144,800 people will earn between €100,000 and €500,000; 3,900 people will earn between €500,000 and €1m while 1,400 people will earn more than €1m.

One might be tempted to ask about the so-called recession. Whatever else, the figures prove that O'Keeffe is correct – there are more millionaires than ever in Ireland. But there are certainly not enough of them to generate sufficient resources for the third level sector by merely imposing fees on the children of millionaires.

These Revenue figures, however, only tell half the story, as they only relate to income. No account is taken of asset ownership including houses, apartments and land. The holiday homes on the Shannon and the packed Ryanair flights to the south of France are easy evidence that the property-owning class has increased dramatically over the last two decades.

Property ownership is where the big increase in wealth has taken place. The ranks for the new rich have swollen well beyond the Revenue's income list. So when we talk about 'better-off' households, we need clarity about the income level to which we are referring and also whether or not an estimate of asset ownership has been included.

These are the type of issues that each of the main political parties should be considering as they gather in September for their pre-Dáil session think-ins. The question at what income level somebody qualifies as being 'rich' has implications for many areas of public policy, especially when the exchequer finances are restricted. It would be reassuring to think that the political system is striving for consistency and fairness. For example, if the 'better off' should pay for their children's third-level education, then for the sake of consistency, should an income-related means test not be applied to child benefit?

Indeed, there is merit in ensuring that a poverty test is applied to the current round of cutbacks in the public services. Research published last week from the Institute of Public Health and the Combat Poverty Agency claimed that 5,400 premature deaths could be avoided every year if the government placed greater importance on tackling poverty. Any government's primary motivator should be to ensure that the 'better off' shoulder more of the pain then the less well-off.

Of course, the best way to achieve a fair redistribution of resources, especially when the economy is slowing, would be to consider a modest increase in the higher rate of income taxation. A lot of the short-term decisions that are being considered to balance the public finances could be framed in a very different context if the money was available by moving the higher income tax rate up by one percentage point to 42%. It would not collapse the economy. But it would certainly reveal whether the politics of McCain or Obama are set to define the debate in Leinster House. And the ensuing outcry would tell us very clearly who in this society can be classified as better off.

Kevin Rafter is head of the department of film and media at IADT, Dun Laoghaire

Shane Coleman is on leave