🔍 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 monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A graphic claiming retirees need as much as $2 million in the United States uses a consistent 25-times annual-spending calculation, but its cost figures have no traceable source or definition. It also excludes state pensions and does not account for the longer savings period faced by people retiring at 50 or 55.
A viral graphic estimating the savings needed to retire in 18 countries applies a consistent 25-times annual-spending formula, but its annual cost estimates cannot be verified because the post provides no source or calculation method. A fact-check published November 4 by ThorstenMeyerAI.com also found that the graphic excludes state pensions and does not distinguish single retirees from couples, homeowners from renters, or standard retirements from early ones.
The graphic, signed “The Business Guy,” lists annual retirement costs and multiplies each by 25 to produce a savings target. It puts the United States at $80,000 a year and $2 million total, 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. The multiplication checks out, with totals rounded. But the fact-checker said no study or method note could be found to establish how the annual country costs were calculated, so the estimates cannot be confirmed or disproved from the graphic alone.
The 25-times calculation reflects the commonly cited 4% rule: withdrawing 4% of a portfolio in the first year, then adjusting withdrawals for inflation, is intended to support roughly 30 years of retirement under the rule’s assumptions. The graphic does not say whether its spending figures include housing, insurance or taxes, or whether they describe one person or a couple. As a US comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2025 Consumer Expenditure Survey found that households headed by someone 65 or older spent an average of $64,445. Those households averaged 1.7 people, and 78% owned their homes. Households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 spent an average of $85,442.
The largest omission identified in the fact-check is state pension income. The US Social Security Administration’s 2027 fact sheet, checked on November 3, estimates an average monthly benefit of $3,355 for an aged couple in which both receive benefits—$40,260 a year. If such a couple spends $80,000 annually, the remaining $39,740 multiplied by 25 is about $993,500, rather than $2 million. That is an illustrative calculation, not a personal forecast. In the UK, the full rate of the new State Pension is £241.30 a week. Two full pensions total £25,095.20 a year, or about $33,676 using the European Central Bank’s November 2 reference rate. Against the graphic’s $55,000 annual figure, that would leave a gap of roughly $21,300, or about $533,000 at 25 times the gap.
How Pensions Change the Savings Target
The graphic presents a single savings total as though it applies equally to people in different countries and circumstances. But pension income changes how much must come from savings, while housing costs, health coverage, taxes and household size can change the spending figure itself. Without those details, the totals are not a reliable basis for deciding whether a person can retire or where they can afford to live.
The distinction matters especially to people considering retirement before pension eligibility. Social Security or a state pension that begins later cannot cover spending in the years before it starts. And even where a pension eventually reduces the amount a portfolio must provide, individual benefits depend on work and contribution histories. The examples show how assumptions can materially change a headline figure; they do not establish what any particular household needs.
The country comparisons also face practical limits beyond living costs. The fact-checker said visa rules can set financial thresholds independent of a destination’s estimated expenses. For example, the Mexican consulate in Las Vegas lists a temporary-residence income requirement of $4,630 per month per person, roughly twice the graphic’s stated $28,000 annual cost for Mexico. Eligibility requirements and costs can vary by route and applicant, so a low estimated budget does not by itself show that someone can move there.
Popular right now
iRobot Roomba 105 Robot Vacuum with LiDAR Navigation
Roborock Robot Vacuum and Mop Combo with Self-Empty Dock
Apple AirPods Max 2 Wireless Over-Ear Headphones – Midnight
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the 25-Times Rule Assumes
The 25-times multiple corresponds to a starting withdrawal rate of 4%: annual spending is multiplied by 25 to estimate a portfolio large enough to fund that spending. The rule is associated with a retirement lasting about 30 years, not a guarantee that funds will last in every market or for every household. The viral graphic uses the same multiplier for every listed country, but provides no explanation of the spending estimates that go into it.
That time horizon can be a poor fit for people who stop working at 50 or 55. Morningstar’s 2025 retirement-income research, published December 3, 2025, gives a base-case starting withdrawal rate of 3.9% for 30 years, 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years for steady, inflation-adjusted spending. Those rates correspond to approximately 25.6, 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending. They are research estimates based on specified assumptions, not guarantees or a universal personal recommendation.
The fact-check also compared country prices using its own price-level model and reported that Spain and Costa Rica had the same price level in that model, while the graphic put Costa Rica’s annual cost 42% below Spain’s. That comparison does not independently establish the correct cost of retirement in either country. It highlights why estimates need a stated method, household profile and date before readers can evaluate country-to-country differences.
“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
Which Costs the Graphic Counts
The graphic’s author has not provided a traceable source or method for the 18 country-level annual cost estimates. It is not clear whether the numbers describe one person or a couple, include rent or homeownership costs, or account for health insurance and taxes. The fact-checker therefore describes the arithmetic as verifiable but the underlying cost estimates as unverified—not necessarily false.
The pension examples also depend on assumptions. The US calculation uses an average benefit for a couple in which both receive Social Security, while the UK calculation assumes two people qualify for the full new State Pension. Actual benefits depend on eligibility and earnings or contribution records, and pension start dates matter. The examples do not account for personal taxes, investment returns, other income, healthcare expenses or how spending may change over time.
The available source material also does not establish that AI is causing older workers to be laid off in large numbers. It reports that official data show older workers who lose jobs find new work less often, but supplies no specific dataset or figures for evaluating that claim here. The link between AI and an individual’s retirement readiness remains separate from the graphic’s unverified cost estimates.
Check the Inputs Before Planning
The graphic’s maker has not supplied a methodology in the material reviewed, so there is no confirmed revision or follow-up calculation to report. Readers assessing the claim should look for a dated source that defines the household, location, housing situation, healthcare and tax treatment behind each annual figure. They should also compare the estimate with their own expected pension income and the age at which benefits begin.
For a personal plan, the relevant next step is to calculate the amount a portfolio must cover after pensions and other income, then test a withdrawal rate against the intended retirement length and individual circumstances. The cited Morningstar research offers scenario-based rates rather than a guarantee. Visa requirements should be checked with the relevant government or consulate, since an estimated low cost of living does not establish residency eligibility.
Key Questions
Yes. $80,000 multiplied by 25 equals $2 million, subject to rounding. That confirms the multiplication, not the source or suitability of the $80,000 annual spending estimate.
Why does the fact-check estimate a lower US savings target?
It subtracts an estimated $40,260 in annual Social Security for a couple where both receive benefits from the assumed $80,000 annual spending. Multiplying the remaining $39,740 by 25 gives about $993,500. This is an example based on an average benefit, not an individualized estimate.
Does the 4% rule work for someone retiring at 55?
The cited rule is framed around roughly 30 years of retirement. Morningstar’s 2025 research gives lower starting withdrawal rates for 35- and 40-year periods, so a 25-times target may not fit an early retiree. Those research rates are estimates, not guarantees.
Are the graphic’s country cost estimates false?
The fact-check did not establish that they are false. It found that no source or method was provided, leaving the figures impossible to verify. The graphic also omits details needed to judge whether its estimates apply to a reader’s household.
Do the pension examples apply to every US or UK retiree?
No. The calculations use an average US couple’s benefit or assume two full UK State Pensions. Actual eligibility and payment amounts vary, and pensions that begin at a later age do not fund the years before they start.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
