wrote in message
oups.com...
You really want more than just the life expectancy at age 65. One of
the factors that help Social Security is the number of people that pay
in and then die before they reach 65. ie pay for retirement and never
get anything. So the number that reach somewhere around 18 and enter
the work force and die before 65 is another number you want.

It's not a large percentage, and it's offset to some degree (more or less, I
don't know) by survivor's benefits.

Overall, the good number for use in input/output analyses is the life
expectancy at 65. They use that number a lot in the insurance business, and
they're playing you-bet-your-life for billions of dollars of their OWN
money. It kind of clears the mind. g


Extreme example would be persons at age 18 with a life expectancy of
65. So about half of them pay into the system and die without drawing
any benefits. Now change that to a life expectancy of 70. Lots more
draw benefits. Over 500 draw benefits for five years.

If you're really curious about this, the statistics are available. Check the
various kinds of data you can order from the Census Bureau. It's a lot more
than you'll find online.


And Bush does not want to go back to 1929 with no government retirement
system.
He wants to go to a system that has some real assets. Not the present
system that has a imaginary trust fund.

Good luck.


I recently picked up and read " Hard Times " edited by Studs Terkel.
I recommend it if you can find a copy.

I like ol' Studs. It's like reading something from a
trade-unionist/socialist from the 1930s (actually, that's exactly what Studs
is all about), but he's a smart guy and well worth reading.

I've heard the book is good. Maybe I'll get around to it.

--
Ed Huntress