RE: $10 Trillion and Life Expectancy

[RRand98163@aol.com]

Dear Bill Larsen,

I You have obviously put a lot of effort into your analyses. Frankly, I just 
do not have the time and energy and interest to review them thoroughly and 
document all the mistakes and shortcomings. My comments are based on your 
comments in the National Dialogue and on very quick glances at one or two of 
your web-site references. If you are really interested in a full-scale 
critique, I suggest you engage a reputable consulting actuarial firm to 
conduct one for you.
2. You stated that retirement planning should be based on a period 
considerably longer than life expectancy at retirement. When I questioned the 
validity of this for Social Security and other pooled pension plans, your 
answer was that you were talking about personal savings. This was not at all 
clear from your original comment, made in the context of a dialogue about 
Social Security.
3.  Similarly, you made a great point to the effect that increases in life 
expectancies come in great part from lower child birth death rates, then 
denied that you had implied this somehow affected the discussion of life 
expectancies and Social Security planning.
4. Life expectancies at age 65 have increased substantially from 1940 to the 
present, about six years for males and longer for females. This information 
is available in many sources, census reports and the annual reports of the 
Trustees of the OASDI Trust Funds.
5. I have no models I have personally constructed but I do accept the 
integrity of the 75 year projections produced annually by the SSA actuaries 
and experts. I believe they are as accurate as it is possible to produce. It 
is not true that they have been consistently over-optimistic.  Actual 
experience has shown them to be too optimistic at times and too pessimistic 
at other times--the very nature of projections. The real question is --what 
action should we take based on the best projections available?
6. You feel I should refute your calculations and conclusions. I think the 
shoe is on the other foot--you should tell us wherein lie the errors in the 
government projections.