🔍 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 graphic listing annual retirement costs and savings targets for 18 countries applies a consistent 25-times multiplier, but its underlying cost estimates cannot be verified because it gives no source or methodology. The analysis says omitting pensions can overstate the savings target for some retirees, while using the same multiplier for people retiring at 50 or 55 may understate what they need.
A viral graphic listing retirement costs in 18 countries gives a U.S. target of $2 million, but a November 4 review by ThorstenMeyerAI.com found no traceable source for its annual cost estimates and said the calculation leaves out state pensions. The graphic consistently multiplies each listed annual cost by 25, but that arithmetic alone does not establish how much a particular person or couple needs to retire.
The graphic, signed “The Business Guy,” lists annual costs such as $80,000 for the United States, $55,000 for the United Kingdom and $24,000 for Thailand. It pairs those amounts with total savings targets of $2 million, $1.4 million and $600,000, respectively. The review says each total is the annual figure multiplied by 25, with rounding in some rows.
That multiplier reflects the so-called 4% rule: a retiree withdraws 4% of savings in the first year and adjusts withdrawals for inflation, under a model intended to cover about 30 years. The review says it found no study, method note or identifiable source for the graphic’s annual living-cost estimates. It therefore describes them as unverifiable, rather than proving them false.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey offers a comparison point, the review says: households headed by someone aged 65 or older spent an average of $64,445 in 2025, and those households averaged 1.7 people; 78% owned their home. Households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 spent $85,442. Those figures do not resolve whether the graphic’s $80,000 assumes one person or two, or whether housing costs include rent.
Pensions Change the Savings Target
The omission of pensions can make a savings target look much larger than the amount a household may need to fund from investments. The review uses the Social Security Administration’s estimate that, from January 2027, an aged couple in which both people receive benefits would get an average $3,355 a month, or $40,260 a year. Subtracting that from the graphic’s assumed $80,000 annual spending leaves $39,740 to cover from savings. At the graphic’s 25-times multiplier, that produces $993,500, rather than $2 million.
This is an illustration based on the graphic’s spending figure and an average benefit, not an individual retirement forecast. Applying the review’s cited 40-year multiplier of 30.3 to the same $39,740 gap yields about $1.2 million. The comparison shows why retirement estimates need to account for both income and the time savings must last, rather than relying on a single headline total.
The distinction matters to readers weighing whether retirement is affordable, particularly if they are considering moving abroad. A country’s lower day-to-day costs do not establish that someone can qualify for residence, obtain suitable health coverage or rely on the same pension income. The figures are planning claims, not guarantees of a retirement outcome.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Bluetooth Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Bose SoundLink Flex Bluetooth Speaker (2nd Gen) – Portable Outdoor Speaker with Hi‑Fi Audio, Waterproof and Dustproof, USB‑C, Up to 12 Hours
DJI Osmo Mobile 8 Smartphone Gimbal with Mic Mini Transmitter, Infinity Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 25-Times Rule Works
The 4% rule is a withdrawal-rate model, not a country-by-country cost survey. The review cites Morningstar’s December 3, 2025 report, “The State of Retirement Income: 2025,” which estimates a highest starting withdrawal rate of 3.9% for a 30-year retirement in its base case for steady, inflation-adjusted spending. For 35 years, the cited rate is 3.5%; for 40 years, it is 3.3%.
Those rates correspond to larger savings multiples than 25: about 25.6 times annual spending for 30 years, 28.6 times for 35 years and 30.3 times for 40 years. The source argues that a 25-times target may be too low for someone stopping work at 50 or 55, because that person may need savings to last longer than 30 years. These are modeled estimates, not assurances that a portfolio will sustain a particular withdrawal.
The review also challenges the graphic’s cross-country comparisons. It says its own price-level model gives Spain and Costa Rica the same price level, while the graphic lists Costa Rica’s annual cost as 42% lower. The graphic’s methods are unavailable, so the reason for that difference cannot be established. The review also points to visa income rules: Mexico’s consulate in Las Vegas lists a monthly income requirement of $4,630 per person for temporary residence, about twice the graphic’s implied monthly living cost of $2,333. A visa threshold is not a measure of ordinary living expenses, but it can affect whether a move is feasible.
“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
Missing Inputs Limit the Comparison
The graphic does not say whether each annual cost applies to a single person or a couple, whether it assumes renting or owning, or whether taxes and insurance are included. It also gives no method for comparing costs across countries. Without those details or a traceable source, its annual estimates cannot be independently checked from the information presented in the graphic.
The pension examples have limits of their own. The U.S. figure is an average for a specified type of couple, not a promise of what any household will receive. The UK calculation assumes two people qualify for the full new State Pension; the review notes that someone whose National Insurance record began after April 2016 needs 35 qualifying years for the full rate. Pension eligibility, benefit amounts and the age when payments begin vary by person.
Timing also changes the calculation. A pension that begins at age 67 does not fund someone’s expenses at 55. The source material does not provide a complete country-by-country budget, personal tax treatment, health-care estimate or investment assumptions for the people represented by the graphic. The available evidence therefore cannot establish a universally correct retirement target for any of the 18 countries.
Personal Budgets Must Fill the Gaps
The review does not report a response from the graphic’s author or identify a forthcoming revision. The next step for readers seeking a usable estimate is to check the underlying costs against a clearly defined household budget, then account separately for pension income, housing, taxes, insurance and residence requirements. Retirement timing and the period savings must cover also need to be specified.
Any update to the graphic would need to disclose its data sources and methodology to make the country comparisons verifiable. Until then, its figures are best treated as unsubstantiated estimates, while the 25-times totals should be understood as a rule-of-thumb calculation rather than an individualized plan. Investment returns and withdrawals are uncertain, and savings can lose value or run short.
Key Questions
Is the graphic’s $2 million U.S. figure mathematically correct?
Its arithmetic is consistent with the graphic’s method: $80,000 multiplied by 25 equals $2 million. That does not verify the $80,000 annual cost estimate or show that the total fits a specific person’s circumstances.
Why does the review say the U.S. savings target could be lower?
It subtracts the Social Security Administration’s estimated $40,260 annual benefit for an aged couple where both receive benefits from the graphic’s assumed $80,000 annual spending. Multiplying the remaining $39,740 by 25 gives $993,500. This is an illustration using an average benefit, not a forecast for every couple.
Does the 25-times rule work for retiring at 50 or 55?
The cited research uses a 25-times equivalent for a 30-year period, but estimates larger multiples for longer retirements: 28.6 times for 35 years and 30.3 times for 40 years. These modeled rates do not guarantee that savings will last, and the right assumptions depend on a person’s circumstances.
Can the country cost figures be verified?
Not from the graphic as described in the review. It provides no traceable source or methodology and does not define household size, housing status, taxes or insurance. The review says the amounts cannot be independently verified on that basis.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
