🔍 Read the full analysis: What It Costs To Retire Around The World: I Fact-Checked The Viral $2 Million Graphic on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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 assigns annual retirement costs and savings targets to 18 countries, using a consistent 25-times multiplier. The figures cannot be verified because the graphic gives no source or spending assumptions, and it omits state pensions; meanwhile, 25 times spending may be too low for people retiring at 50 or 55.
A viral graphic assigning annual retirement costs and savings targets to 18 countries uses consistent arithmetic, but its figures cannot be verified because it provides no source or spending definitions, according to a November 4 fact-check by Thorsten Meyer. The graphic’s U.S. target of $2 million also ignores Social Security, while its 25-times savings formula may understate the needs of 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. Meyer found that each total is the annual figure multiplied by 25, with rounding in some rows. That corresponds to a 4% initial withdrawal rate: withdrawing 4% of savings in the first year and adjusting withdrawals for inflation afterward.
That arithmetic does not verify the annual budgets themselves. Meyer said he could not find a study, methodology note or traceable source for the cost figures. The graphic also does not say whether it assumes one person or a couple, renting or owning a home, or whether health insurance and taxes are included. The figures should therefore be treated as unverified estimates, not established costs of retirement in those countries.
For a U.S. comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey reported that households headed by someone aged 65 or older spent an average of $64,445 in 2025. The average household had 1.7 people, and 78% owned their home. Households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 spent $85,442. Meyer said that makes $80,000 plausible for some households, but the survey does not establish that the graphic’s figure fits a single retiree, a renter or a particular household.
Pensions Change the Savings Target
The graphic counts the full annual budget as an amount that must come from savings, even though many retirees receive public pensions. For the United States, the Social Security Administration’s 2027 fact sheet projected an average benefit of $3,355 a month for an aged couple in which both people receive benefits, following a 3.6% cost-of-living adjustment. That is $40,260 a year.
Using the graphic’s $80,000 annual budget for a couple, Meyer subtracts that projected Social Security income, leaving $39,740 a year to be funded from other sources. Multiplying the gap by 25 gives about $993,500, rather than $2 million. Using a 30.3-times multiplier for a 40-year retirement gives about $1.2 million. These are illustrations based on stated assumptions, not personalized retirement estimates; benefit amounts and eligibility differ.
The same issue applies in the United Kingdom. The government’s full new State Pension rate is £241.30 a week. Two people receiving that full rate would get £25,095.20 a year. Using the European Central Bank reference rates cited by Meyer for November 2, 2026, that is about $33,676. Against the graphic’s $55,000 budget, the illustrative annual gap is about $21,300, or roughly $533,000 at 25 times the gap.
These calculations show why the graphic’s totals can mislead readers comparing destinations or deciding how much to save: a target changes with pension income, household size and retirement timing. They do not establish what a particular person will need, and a state pension that begins at 67 cannot fund the years before it starts for someone who stops working at 55.
Products Worth Considering
Trezor Safe 7 Crypto Hardware Wallet
Trezor Safe 5 Crypto Hardware Wallet with Color Touchscreen, Black Graphite
Logitech MX Keypad Programmable Macro Pad for Developers, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 25-Times Rule Fits
The 25-times multiplier is another way of expressing the so-called 4% rule. It is commonly associated with a retirement lasting about 30 years, rather than a guarantee that a portfolio will last for every retiree under all market conditions. Meyer cites Morningstar’s 2025 retirement-income research, published December 3, 2025, which estimated a highest starting withdrawal rate of 3.9% for a 30-year period under its base case for steady, inflation-adjusted spending.
For longer periods, the cited research gives lower starting rates: 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years. Those rates correspond to about 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending. Someone retiring at 50 or 55 may need savings to last longer than a person who retires at 65, so applying 25 times spending without accounting for the length of retirement can produce an overly low target. Withdrawal research is based on assumptions and does not promise a particular outcome.
International comparisons add another uncertainty: country-level price estimates can differ depending on what is priced and how the calculation is made. Meyer says his own price-level model gives Costa Rica and Spain the same price level, while the graphic places Costa Rica 42% below Spain. That discrepancy does not by itself prove which figure is right; the graphic offers no method for readers to check.
“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 November 4 fact-check
Missing Inputs Limit the Comparison
The graphic’s author, data source and calculation method remain unidentified in the material reviewed. It is also unclear whether each annual cost is meant for an individual or household, what housing arrangement it assumes, or whether health care, taxes and insurance are included. Without those details, the country rankings cannot be independently checked on a like-for-like basis.
The pension examples are not forecasts for every retiree. The U.S. figure is an average for a defined group, while the U.K. calculation assumes two people qualify for the full new State Pension. Actual benefits depend on individual records and circumstances. Meyer also notes that people who retire before pension eligibility must cover the gap years themselves. The source material does not provide complete calculations for all 18 countries, so its U.S. and U.K. examples should not be read as a full reassessment of the graphic.
The source also raises the topic of AI and older workers, but supplies no evidence that AI is causing large-scale layoffs among older workers. It says official data shows older workers who lose jobs find new work less often; the provided material does not identify the specific data series or give a rate, so that claim cannot be quantified here.
What Readers Should Check Next
The graphic may continue circulating, but a reliable country-by-country comparison would require its creator to publish traceable sources and consistent assumptions for each budget. Readers weighing a retirement estimate can check the cost categories, household size, housing status, tax treatment and health coverage before treating a headline total as a target.
They would also need to compare their own expected pension eligibility and income with the years they plan to fund from savings, then account for the intended retirement duration. The fact-check does not supply individualized projections or a complete set of revised country totals. Until those inputs are available, the graphic’s annual costs remain unverified and its savings targets are best understood as a simple 25-times calculation, not a complete retirement plan.
Key Questions
Is the graphic’s $2 million U.S. figure mathematically correct?
It matches the graphic’s calculation: $80,000 multiplied by 25 equals $2 million. That confirms the arithmetic, not whether $80,000 is a supported annual budget or the right savings target for a particular person.
Why does Social Security lower the example savings target?
If a retiree receives Social Security, some annual spending is funded by that income rather than savings. Meyer’s example subtracts an estimated $40,260 a year for an eligible couple from an $80,000 budget before applying the multiplier. Actual benefits vary, and the estimate does not cover the years before benefits begin.
Does the 25-times rule work for someone retiring at 50?
It may be too low for a retirement lasting longer than 30 years. The Morningstar research cited by Meyer uses lower starting withdrawal rates for 35- and 40-year periods, which imply savings multipliers above 25. These are research estimates based on assumptions, not guarantees.
Can the graphic show which country is cheapest for retirement?
Not reliably from the information provided. It gives no source or definition for the costs and does not specify household size, housing, insurance or taxes. The fact-check also identifies a substantial difference between the graphic’s Costa Rica and Spain figures and Meyer’s own price-level model.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
