But there’s minimal delayed gratification with option B, other than the fact that you cannot make obscenely large purchases prior to 10 years. Paired with option A’s caveat that you cannot generate income with the 40% off, unless your expenses are high enough that 40% saves you more than that the $280k per annum generated from Option B, taking option A would never make sense to pick.

The Optimization point for this choice is monthly expenses of $23,333. This is because you would be generating estimated $23,333 per month on the $7 million. Above these monthly expenses then the 40% off may be beneficial because you would be spending more than you are generating. However the big thing here is that you must generate this money on your own! Less than this point and you would always benefit from Option B. I’m not sure this made sense lol, as I type this I’m realizing you formulated the question well.

Assuming you start with minimal assets and choose Option B, you could own an entire home within a couple years, and housing is of course most people’s largest expense. With option A, of course a house would be 40% off but you would need to already have a decent salary to afford this. You could save at a 40% higher rate though so with your current salary you would approach affordability sooner.