🔍 Read the full analysis: What It Costs To Retire Around The World: I Fact-Checked The Viral $2 Million Graphic on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A viral graphic lists annual retirement costs and savings targets for 18 countries, but its author, data sources and assumptions are not identified. Its totals consistently multiply annual spending by 25, while omitting state pensions and details such as household size and housing; that formula may also understate savings needs for people retiring early.
A viral graphic listing retirement costs in 18 countries applies a consistent formula to its savings targets, but provides no traceable source for the annual costs and leaves out key assumptions, according to a Nov. 4 fact-check by Thorsten Meyer. The graphic says a U.S. retiree needs $80,000 a year and $2 million in savings; the calculation is 25 times annual spending, but the figure cannot be verified without knowing who it describes or what expenses it includes.
The graphic, signed “The Business Guy,” lists annual retirement costs and corresponding savings targets. Examples include $55,000 a year and $1.4 million for the UK, $38,000 and $950,000 for Spain, $28,000 and $700,000 for Mexico, and $14,000 and $350,000 for Kenya. Meyer says every total is the annual figure multiplied by 25, with rounding in some rows. That matches the familiar 4% rule: withdraw 4% of savings in the first year, then adjust withdrawals for inflation, with the approach intended to cover roughly 30 years.
Meyer says he could not find a study, method note or identifiable data source behind the annual costs. That means the listed amounts cannot be independently checked from the graphic, though the arithmetic can. It also does not say whether its budget is for one person or a couple, a renter or homeowner, or whether taxes and health insurance are included.
As a U.S. reference point, Meyer cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2025 Consumer Expenditure Survey: households headed by someone 65 or older spent an average of $64,445, and averaged 1.7 people; 78% owned their homes. Households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 spent $85,442 on average. Those figures make $80,000 plausible for some households, Meyer writes, but do not establish what the graphic’s estimate represents.
The graphic also treats all spending as if it must come from savings. Meyer uses the Social Security Administration’s 2027 fact sheet, which he says he reviewed on Nov. 3, 2026. It projects an average benefit of $3,355 per month for an aged couple where both receive benefits, or $40,260 a year. If that couple spends $80,000 annually, the remaining $39,740 multiplied by 25 gives about $993,500 in savings. This is an illustrative calculation, not a personalized retirement estimate.
For the UK, Meyer cites the government’s full new State Pension rate of £241.30 a week. Two people receiving that full rate would get £25,095.20 annually. Using the European Central Bank’s Nov. 2, 2026 reference rates, Meyer converts this to about $33,676. Against the graphic’s $55,000 annual estimate, the implied gap is about $21,300; multiplied by 25, that would be roughly $533,000 in savings. Eligibility and actual pension amounts vary, and the full rate depends on a qualifying National Insurance record.
Pensions Change the Savings Calculation
The graphic’s targets could alarm readers who interpret them as the amount every retiree must accumulate personally. In countries with public pensions, the amount needed from savings may be lower than a calculation that assumes the entire budget comes from investments. Meyer’s U.S. example reduces the 25-times target from $2 million to about $993,500 for a hypothetical couple receiving the cited average Social Security benefits.
That does not mean the lower amount is right for every household. Public benefits differ by earnings history, eligibility and retirement age, while housing, health care, taxes and family circumstances affect spending. The comparison is most useful as a warning about the graphic’s missing inputs: a single savings target cannot describe every retiree, even within one country.
The formula’s time horizon also matters. Someone retiring at 50 or 55 may need savings to last 35 or 40 years, rather than the roughly 30 years associated with the 4% rule. Meyer cites Morningstar’s 2025 retirement-income research, which gives lower starting withdrawal rates for longer periods. The result is a tension in the viral graphic: it may overstate the savings burden by omitting pensions, while its 25-times rule may be too optimistic for early retirement.
Products Worth Considering
Samsung Galaxy Tab A11+ 11-Inch Tablet, 6GB RAM, 128GB Storage, Expandable, Gray
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2024), 16 GB, 7-inch Display, Black
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 25-Times Rule Works
The 4% rule is a planning guideline, not a promise that a particular portfolio will sustain a particular lifestyle. Under the version described by Meyer, a retiree withdraws 4% of the initial portfolio in the first year and increases the withdrawal with inflation. Dividing annual spending by 4% produces the graphic’s 25-times multiplier. The estimate depends on assumptions about investment returns, inflation, portfolio mix and the number of years withdrawals continue.
Morningstar’s report, “The State of Retirement Income: 2025,” published Dec. 3, 2025, found a highest starting safe withdrawal rate of 3.9% for a 30-year period in its base case for steady, inflation-adjusted spending. Meyer says the same research puts the rate at 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years, equivalent to about 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending. Those are research estimates under stated assumptions, not universal guarantees or country-specific budgets.
The graphic also compares countries without showing how costs were calculated. Meyer says his own price-level model gives Spain and Costa Rica the same price level, while the graphic lists Costa Rica as 42% cheaper. That difference raises questions about the graphic’s method, but the available information does not establish which estimate is more representative of a retiree’s actual expenses.
“The arithmetic is right. Almost everything that matters is missing: a source, a definition of who is retiring, and state pensions.”
— Thorsten Meyer, in the Nov. 4 fact-check
Missing Inputs Limit the Comparisons
The graphic does not identify the source of its country-by-country annual costs or explain how they were calculated. It is also unclear whether the figures cover an individual or household, rent or home ownership, health insurance, taxes or other major expenses. Without those details, the annual budgets cannot be independently validated as comparable estimates.
The pension examples are illustrations, not forecasts for particular readers. The U.S. figure is an average for a specified category of benefit recipients, while the UK calculation assumes two people qualify for the full new State Pension. A pension starting at a later age may not help someone who stops working at 50 or 55. Meyer also raises visa income requirements as a practical constraint for retirees considering a move abroad; the article cites a Mexican consulate’s stated monthly-income threshold, but visa rules and requirements can depend on the consulate and applicant.
The article’s AI-related framing also needs care. Meyer says there is no evidence in the material he reviewed that AI is laying off older workers in large numbers. He points instead to official data showing that older workers who lose jobs find new ones less often. The provided material does not give the data series, period or figures behind that statement, so it does not establish the scale or cause of the difference.
Check the Assumptions Before Planning
The next step for readers is to compare their own expected spending with reliable estimates of pensions and other income, rather than treat the graphic’s totals as individual targets. That means accounting for household size, housing, health coverage, taxes, retirement age and the number of years savings may need to last. People considering retirement abroad would also need to check current residency and visa rules with the relevant authorities.
The graphic’s author has not provided a source or methodology in the material reviewed by Meyer. Until that information is available, its country costs remain unverified estimates, even though the 25-times arithmetic is reproducible. More detail on the underlying data, household assumptions and treatment of pensions would be needed to make a meaningful country-to-country comparison.
Key Questions
Yes, as a multiplication: $80,000 times 25 equals $2 million. That arithmetic does not verify the $80,000 annual budget or show that the target applies to every retiree.
Why does Meyer calculate a lower U.S. savings target?
His example subtracts a cited average annual Social Security benefit of $40,260 for a couple from an assumed $80,000 budget, then multiplies the $39,740 gap by 25. The result, about $993,500, depends on those assumptions and is not a personal forecast.
Does the 25-times rule work for someone retiring at 50 or 55?
It may be too optimistic for a longer retirement. Meyer cites Morningstar estimates of a 3.5% starting withdrawal rate for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years, compared with 3.9% for 30 years in its base case.
Can the country cost figures be verified?
Not from the information cited in Meyer’s report. The graphic does not provide a traceable source or method for its annual costs, and it does not define household size, housing status or included expenses.
Do the pension examples apply to everyone?
No. The U.S. example uses an average benefit for a specified category of couples, while the UK example assumes both people receive the full new State Pension. Actual benefits depend on eligibility and individual records, and pensions may begin after someone stops working.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
