🔍 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 graphic’s retirement totals consistently multiply annual costs by 25, but the figures cannot be verified because the graphic gives no source or spending definitions and omits state pensions. A source-based review says pension income can substantially reduce the savings gap, while people retiring at 50 or 55 may need a larger cushion than the graphic’s 25-times rule suggests.
A November 4 review of a viral graphic listing retirement costs for 18 countries found that its totals consistently equal 25 times the annual spending figures, but the graphic provides no traceable source or definition of what those costs include. The review by Thorsten Meyer says the calculation also leaves out state pensions, a gap that can materially change how much a retiree needs from savings.
The graphic, signed “The Business Guy,” lists annual retirement costs including $80,000 for the United States, $55,000 for the United Kingdom, $38,000 for Spain, $28,000 for Mexico and $14,000 for Kenya. It multiplies each annual amount by 25: the US total is $2 million, while Thailand’s $24,000 annual figure produces a $600,000 total. The arithmetic is consistent with the 4% rule, which uses a 4% initial withdrawal from savings and adjusts withdrawals for inflation in later years.
But the source of the annual cost estimates is not identified, according to Meyer’s review. The graphic does not say whether figures apply to one person or a couple, whether housing costs assume renting or owning, or whether taxes and insurance are included. Meyer says those omissions mean the numbers cannot be verified; that is not the same as establishing that they are false.
For a US comparison, the review cites Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that households headed by someone 65 or older spent an average of $64,445 in 2025. 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 figures provide a point of comparison, but do not establish what the viral graphic’s $80,000 estimate represents.
Pensions Change the Savings Gap
The most consequential omission identified in the review is retirement income from public pensions. The graphic presents total annual spending as though it all must be financed from savings. For people who qualify for benefits, the amount that must come from a portfolio may be lower, although personal eligibility, benefit size and start date vary.
Using the graphic’s $80,000 annual US spending estimate for a couple, Meyer subtracts the Social Security Administration’s estimated $40,260 annual benefit for an aged couple where both receive benefits. Applying the graphic’s 25-times calculation to the remaining $39,740 produces about $993,500 in savings, rather than $2 million. This is an illustration built from the graphic’s own spending figure and an agency average, not a personal retirement estimate.
The same approach applied to the UK gives a different example. GOV.UK lists the full new State Pension at £241.30 a week; two people receiving that full rate would have £25,095.20 a year. Meyer converts that amount to about $33,676 using the European Central Bank’s November 2, 2026, reference rates. Against the graphic’s $55,000 annual figure, the resulting gap is about $21,300 a year, or approximately $533,000 at 25 times. Eligibility and actual pension entitlements are not guaranteed by this comparison.
These examples matter because a headline savings target can be misleading when it does not distinguish spending from income. They also do not prove that moving abroad will make retirement affordable: housing, healthcare, taxes, exchange rates and permission to reside can affect the actual budget.
Products Worth Considering
Samsung Odyssey G4 25-inch FHD Gaming Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 27 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor (U2726DER), QHD
Samsung 27-inch Odyssey G5 QHD Gaming Monitor (G51F)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Rule Behind the Graphic
The 25-times multiplier comes from the commonly cited 4% rule. Under the approach described in the review, a retiree withdraws 4% of savings in the first year and adjusts later withdrawals for inflation, with the rule generally associated with a retirement lasting about 30 years. It is a planning framework, not a guarantee that a portfolio will last or that a particular budget is sufficient.
That time horizon matters for readers who stop working earlier. Meyer cites Morningstar’s 2025 retirement-income research, published December 3, 2025, which gives safe starting withdrawal rates of 3.9% for 30 years, 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years under its stated assumptions. Those rates correspond to roughly 25.6, 28.6 and 30.3 times annual portfolio spending. The review’s point is that a 25-times estimate may be too low for a person retiring at 50 or 55 and funding a longer retirement.
The review also questions whether the country figures are measured consistently. In Meyer’s own price-level model, Costa Rica and Spain have the same price level, while the graphic puts Costa Rica’s annual cost 42% below Spain’s. That comparison is Meyer’s model-based check, not proof of the graphic’s methodology, which is not disclosed. The review further notes that residency requirements can differ from living-cost estimates: a Mexican consulate in Las Vegas lists a temporary-residence income requirement of $4,630 a month per person, about twice the graphic’s $28,000 annual estimate divided by 12. Visa rules and amounts depend on the relevant authority and circumstances.
“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 review
Missing Inputs Limit the Estimates
The graphic’s annual cost figures remain unverified: the review says it could not locate a source or methodology, and the image does not define household size, housing status, insurance, taxes or other spending categories. Without those details, readers cannot tell whether countries were compared on a consistent basis or whether a listed amount fits their circumstances.
The pension calculations are also examples, not individualized forecasts. The US figures use an agency average for an aged couple in which both receive benefits; the UK illustration assumes two people qualify for the full new State Pension. Benefits may differ by earnings history, eligibility, age and other factors. A pension that starts later cannot fund expenses for someone who has already retired at 55.
The source material also raises the question of AI and older workers but does not establish that AI is causing large-scale layoffs among them. It says official data show older workers who lose jobs find new employment less often, but supplies no specific statistics in the material available for this article. The connection between that labor-market concern and the retirement graphic remains separate from whether its cost estimates are sound.
Check Budgets Against Personal Benefits
The next step for readers is to treat the graphic as an unverified starting point, not a retirement target. A useful calculation needs a defined household, location and housing plan; estimates for healthcare, taxes and other expenses; and the person’s own expected pension or other income. Anyone considering early retirement also needs to account for the number of years before public benefits begin and the possibility of a 35- or 40-year withdrawal period.
The source material does not report a response from the graphic’s creator, a published methodology, or a plan to revise the country estimates. Until such information is available, the country-by-country totals cannot be independently checked. The pension and withdrawal-rate comparisons can illustrate why a single multiplier may not fit everyone, but they do not establish a guaranteed savings amount or investment outcome.
Key Questions
Its totals match 25 times the annual cost shown, rounded to the nearest listed amount. That confirms the multiplication, not the accuracy or completeness of the underlying cost estimates.
Why does the review say the $2 million US figure could be lower?
The review subtracts an estimated $40,260 a year in Social Security for an aged couple where both receive benefits from the graphic’s $80,000 annual spending figure, then multiplies the remaining $39,740 by 25. The resulting $993,500 is an illustration using an agency average, not a personalized target.
Does the 25-times rule work for someone retiring at 50 or 55?
Not necessarily. The 4% rule is generally associated with a 30-year retirement. The Morningstar research cited by Meyer uses lower starting withdrawal rates for 35- and 40-year periods, implying higher savings multiples under its assumptions.
Can the country figures be compared directly?
That is unclear. The graphic does not identify its source or say whether it compares single people or couples, renters or homeowners, or budgets with taxes and insurance included. The review therefore says the figures cannot be verified as a consistent comparison.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
