State Pension deferral

mgdavid

saver861 wrote: »

If you look back to post number 7 you will see it is a generalised quote rather than specific ... thus responses followed on.

On another thread I did have some debate about the merits of deferral. The consensus seemed to be that unless you agreed deferral was a good thing, you are probably arithmetically illiterate.

While some people are under the illusion that if you defer you will benefit in 9.6 years onwards - as that is the supposedly break-even point. I merely sought to clarify that
a) it is 10.6 years from pension date
b) if you go into tax paying mode from non tax paying on receipt of pension then that will extend reaching the break-even point.
c) if you invested the years non-deferred pension that would extend the break-even point even further.

Thus, it could be as much as 14 years from pension date. If you live long enough that still could be a good deal. However, there are many situations where the benefits of deferral are not as valid as the sweeping statements about deferral might lead some to believe.

It's disingenuous - at best - to start referring to other threads whilst ignoring the specific statements and questions of this thread.
Post #7 provides a good example of when it could be advantageous to not defer, which helps prove you wrong.
I ask again, what makes you say '...there are those who seem to be convinced deferral is the best option regardless of whatever the arithmetic produces' on the basis of the responses to this thread?

Which sweeping statements are you objecting to?

The OP has already been back (post 5) and thanked the responses so presumably they are happy.

Are you actually contributing to the thread and helping the OP, or just wanting to re-open an old non-argument?

saver861

mgdavid wrote: »

It's disingenuous - at best - to start referring to other threads whilst ignoring the specific statements and questions of this thread.

I'm afraid your response is too policeman like ... if I have been disingenuous to anyone then it was not the intention. Kidmugsy responded to a quote and I done the same. Both those response are disingenuous by your rules it would seem, yet you choose to take my post only for your comment.

mgdavid wrote: »

Post #7 provides a good example of when it could be advantageous to not defer, which helps prove you wrong.
I ask again, what makes you say '...there are those who seem to be convinced deferral is the best option regardless of whatever the arithmetic produces' on the basis of the responses to this thread?

But ... to follow your own rules, why persist in a line of questioning that, as you say, has nothing to do with the OP?

mgdavid wrote: »

Are you actually contributing to the thread and helping the OP, or just wanting to re-open an old non-argument?

I would say my post was a contribution to the thread - it may or may not meet your approval and nor that of many others.

However, it is an open forum for posters to feel the liberty to post as they wish within the specific guidelines of the forum. I'm afraid if you feel my posts to be disingenuous then I might suggest you ignore my posts if you feel they are of such insignificance.