Soldato
His numbers don't make sense to me, I think he's wrong, as does someone else in the text.
Firstly I think hes a row out on his spreadsheet for the deferred one.*
The standard one hes correct. take 5 years hes got £10660, its 9471 with 3% applied annually.
Deferred however hes wrong, its 9755 (year 2 pension with 3% added), gives 10,320, apply 3% annually for 3 more years = £11,278 hes showing 10949, which is deferred pension with 2 years 3% added.
Payback = 17 odd years. (100/5.8% = 17.24
)
With the 20% and the correct aging. The amount lost is only 9471 X 80% (£7577), so the payback is faster, around year 12.
With 40%, its year 10ish, because you only lost £5,682.
All above assuming as he says tax neutral. Gets rather complicated if you start adding in more criteria
* How the table should look
It used to be more lucrative so the benefit was nerfed. It used to be 1% per 5 weeks (just over 10% per year), but it was hacked back to 1% per 9 weeks. People living longer.
Firstly I think hes a row out on his spreadsheet for the deferred one.*
The standard one hes correct. take 5 years hes got £10660, its 9471 with 3% applied annually.
Deferred however hes wrong, its 9755 (year 2 pension with 3% added), gives 10,320, apply 3% annually for 3 more years = £11,278 hes showing 10949, which is deferred pension with 2 years 3% added.
Payback = 17 odd years. (100/5.8% = 17.24
)With the 20% and the correct aging. The amount lost is only 9471 X 80% (£7577), so the payback is faster, around year 12.
With 40%, its year 10ish, because you only lost £5,682.
All above assuming as he says tax neutral. Gets rather complicated if you start adding in more criteria
* How the table should look
| Year 1 | 9471 | |
| Year 2 | 9755 | 10321 |
| Year 3 | 10048 | 10631 |
| Year 4 | 10349 | 10949 |
| Year 5 | 10660 | 11278 |
It used to be more lucrative so the benefit was nerfed. It used to be 1% per 5 weeks (just over 10% per year), but it was hacked back to 1% per 9 weeks. People living longer.
Last edited:
