Talk:Ulpian's life table

Inconsistency
I don't understand how the life expectancy at birth can be "19 to 23 years" when for a person 0-19 years old Ulpian's figure is 30 years, meaning that half of such population died in 30 years. What kind of distribution is assumed? Alaexis¿question? 08:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read the Frier's article and understood the logic. I have a feeling that the results, especially the life expectancy at birth are very sensitive to the assumptions he makes about the 0-20 cohort (and he himself says that probably the statistics for that group were less reliable) but unfortunately there's no sensitivity analysis in the article. Alaexis¿question? 08:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Example needed
The "The table therefore most likely represents the rate at which the annual tax payment on the annuity was staggered: a 5% tax was paid on each annual payment received by the legatee until the tax office had received the figure produced by the table" statement is confusing.

Would the person inheriting an estate have a 5% tax owed each year for X years based on the age of the person inheriting the estate?

How would that be calculated, fixed rate, sliding rate?

It seems that the table implies, RS cite (?), that the table is below the expected life span. Maybe so as to ensure that most, or all, of the inheritance tax would be paid somewhat before the average person inheriting an estate dies. 107.197.56.204 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)