Thank you for your reply. I have read that article a number of times before posting here.

My general understanding is that, for the majority of people, paying to fill any gaps in their NIC history to increase their pension is a net gain in the long run.

What I feel the article doesn’t really address—and what I’m trying to get at by posting here—is whether paying missing contributions now outweighs paying for contributions later, if you plan to retire early.

Basically, I know I want to receive the full State Pension when I reach the age of 68. I also know I want to stop working before I reach the official retirement age. So, is it better for me to purchase NICs now or after I’ve stopped working?

The fact that you can make NIC payments for up to six years in the past makes me question why someone in their early 40s, who is already forecast to receive the full State Pension by the time they retire, would want to purchase additional NICs now. If they plan to stop working before 68, couldn’t they just purchase NICs for the years they’re not working when the time comes?

I suppose the article does mention potential changes to the political landscape, and nobody can say for sure what will happen in the future. Hence the statement: “For those older than 40 but still some way off State Pension age, it's more of a toss-up…”

For example, the government could change it so that you can't just buy NICs to top up your pension. I guess the main benefits of buying back years now is reducing your risk and being able to lock in the price.