🔍 Read the full analysis: What It Costs To Retire Around The World: I Fact-Checked The Viral $2 Million Graphic on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A viral retirement-cost graphic applies a 25-times multiplier to annual spending, but its underlying country-by-country costs have no cited source or clear definition. State pensions can lower the savings target for eligible retirees, while people retiring at 50 or 55 may need a larger cushion than the graphic’s 25-times rule suggests.
A viral graphic assigning retirement budgets to 18 countries uses a consistent formula, but its annual cost estimates cannot be verified because it gives no source or calculation method and does not say whether the figures cover a single person or a couple. A fact-check published November 4 by ThorstenMeyerAI.com also finds that the graphic omits state pensions and uses a 25-times savings rule that may be too optimistic for people retiring early.
The graphic, signed “The Business Guy,” lists the United States at $80,000 a year and $2 million in savings, the United Kingdom at $55,000 and $1.4 million, Thailand at $24,000 and $600,000, and Kenya at $14,000 and $350,000. Across the examples checked, each total is the stated annual cost multiplied by 25, with figures rounded. That arithmetic is consistent; it does not verify the annual costs themselves.
The fact-checker says no study, methodology note or traceable author was provided for those costs. It is consequently not possible to establish whether a figure includes rent, health insurance or taxes, or whether it describes one retiree or two. The article compares the US estimate with Bureau of Labor Statistics data: in 2025, households headed by someone 65 or older spent an average of $64,445 and had an average of 1.7 people; 78% owned their homes. Households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 spent $85,442. The comparison makes $80,000 plausible for some households, but does not establish what the graphic measures.
The graphic’s 25-times formula corresponds to the familiar 4% rule: withdraw 4% of savings in the first year, then adjust withdrawals for inflation, with the cited rule intended for about a 30-year retirement. The fact-check applies that formula after accounting for US Social Security. The Social Security Administration estimates an average monthly benefit of $3,355 for an aged couple in which both receive benefits, from January 2027. That equals $40,260 a year. If the couple spends $80,000 annually, the remaining $39,740 multiplied by 25 is $993,500, rather than $2 million. This is an illustration based on the graphic’s spending assumption, not a personal retirement forecast.
Pensions Change the Savings Calculation
The graphic presents its total as if the full annual budget must come from savings. For retirees who qualify for public benefits, that can overstate the amount savings must supply. In the US example, subtracting the cited average couple’s Social Security benefit cuts the graphic’s 25-times target from $2 million to about $993,500. Using a longer-retirement multiplier changes the result: the fact-check calculates about $1.2 million using Morningstar’s 30.3-times multiplier for a 40-year retirement.
The same issue appears in the UK example, but entitlement and personal records matter. The government’s full new State Pension rate is £241.30 a week; someone whose National Insurance record began after April 2016 needs 35 qualifying years to receive the full rate. Two full pensions total £25,095.20 a year, which the fact-check converts to about $33,676 using the European Central Bank’s November 2, 2026, reference rates. Against the graphic’s $55,000 annual estimate, that leaves a stated gap of about $21,300, or roughly $533,000 at 25 times.
These examples show why a single savings target can mislead people making decisions about where and when to retire. The result depends on spending, housing, benefit eligibility, health costs, taxes and the years before public benefits begin. The figures are historical averages or published rates, not a promise of future returns or a substitute for an individual plan.
Popular right now
De'Longhi Rivelia Fully Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother, White
Bose QuietComfort True Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Black
Hisense 65-inch U6 Pro Mini-LED 4K UHD Smart Fire TV
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The 4% Rule Has a Time Limit
The 25-times calculation is another way of expressing a 4% initial withdrawal rate. Under the rule described in the source, a retiree withdraws 4% of savings in the first year and adjusts the amount for inflation in later years. The convention is associated with a 30-year retirement; it does not mean every portfolio will last that long or that the same rate fits every person.
That duration matters for people who stop working at 50 or 55. Morningstar’s 2025 retirement-income research, published December 3, 2025, gives starting withdrawal rates of 3.9% for 30 years, 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years for its stated base case of steady, inflation-adjusted spending. Those rates correspond to approximately 25.6, 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending. They are research estimates under defined assumptions, not guarantees.
Living costs also cannot be compared reliably from the graphic alone. The fact-check says its own price-level model assigns Costa Rica and Spain the same price level, while the graphic puts Costa Rica 42% cheaper. That mismatch illustrates the problem of ranking countries without a disclosed method. It also reports that residency requirements can be a separate barrier: the Mexican consulate in Las Vegas asks for $4,630 a month in income per person for temporary residence, around twice the graphic’s stated monthly cost for Mexico. The consular figure and the graphic measure different things, so they should not be treated as a direct cost comparison.
“The arithmetic is right. Almost everything that matters is missing: a source, a definition of who is retiring, and state pensions.”
— Thorsten Meyer, ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Key Assumptions Remain Unverified
The central uncertainty is the origin and meaning of the graphic’s annual costs. The source article says it could not locate a supporting study or method note. Without those, readers cannot tell whether the estimates represent a single person or a couple, renters or homeowners, or whether they include insurance and taxes. The fact-check says the figures cannot be called false on the available evidence; they are unverified, not independently confirmed.
The pension calculations are illustrations, too. Social Security amounts are averages, while UK full-rate benefits require qualifying records; individual payments can differ. A pension that begins at 67 does not pay a person who retired at 55 during the intervening years. The source does not supply comparable pension adjustments for all 18 countries, nor enough detail to assess local tax, medical coverage, exchange-rate exposure or residency eligibility across them.
The article also raises an AI-related concern: it says there is no evidence that AI is causing large-scale layoffs among older workers, while official data show older workers who lose jobs find new work less often. The supplied material does not provide the underlying data series or numbers for that labor-market point, so the extent and causes of the difference cannot be assessed here.
Check Benefits Before Setting a Target
No revised, fully sourced cost table for all 18 countries is provided in the fact-check, and the graphic’s creator has not supplied a method in the source material. The next useful step for readers is to identify what the graphic’s annual figure is supposed to cover, then compare it with current local spending data and the applicable pension and residency rules.
Anyone using the US or UK examples should check their own benefit estimates and eligibility rather than assuming they will receive the cited average or full rate. Early retirees also need to account for the years before benefits begin and assess withdrawal assumptions over a 35- or 40-year horizon. The cited research helps show how duration affects the calculation, but it does not settle what a particular household should save.
Key Questions
Its arithmetic is consistent: $80,000 multiplied by 25 equals $2 million. But the annual $80,000 estimate has no cited source or definition in the graphic, so the fact-check cannot verify whether it is an appropriate cost for a particular retiree.
Why does the fact-check give a lower US savings figure?
It subtracts an estimated average Social Security benefit of $40,260 a year for an aged couple where both receive benefits from the assumed $80,000 budget. Applying the same 25-times calculation to the remaining $39,740 produces about $993,500. The result is an example, not a personalized estimate.
Does the 25-times rule work for retiring at 50 or 55?
The rule described is based on an approximately 30-year retirement. Morningstar’s 2025 research, as cited in the fact-check, gives lower starting withdrawal rates for 35- and 40-year periods, equivalent to roughly 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending. Those figures depend on the research assumptions and are not guarantees.
Can the graphic be used to compare countries?
Not reliably on the available information. It does not disclose its cost sources, household assumptions or what expenses are included. Actual budgets and residency requirements differ, and the fact-check’s examples show that published living-cost estimates and visa income rules may measure different things.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
