🔍 Read the full analysis: What It Costs To Retire Around The World: I Fact-Checked The Viral $2 Million Graphic on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
A viral graphic lists annual retirement costs for 18 countries and multiplies each by 25, but its spending estimates have no traceable source or clear definition. The arithmetic is consistent with the 4% rule, yet the rule may understate needs for people retiring at 50 or 55, while omitted state pensions can make savings targets look much higher than they are for some couples.
The graphic, signed “The Business Guy,” lists **18 countries** and pairs annual costs with supposed retirement savings targets. 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 review says each total is the annual figure multiplied by 25, with rounding. That is the arithmetic used by the **4% rule**, not evidence that the spending estimates themselves are accurate.
Thorsten Meyer said he checked the figures against official statistics, pension authorities and consulates, but could not identify a source, calculation method or definition of the retiree represented. He said that means the estimates cannot be verified, rather than conclusively shown to be false. As one comparison, the review cites U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing households headed by someone aged 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 $85,442 on average.
The review’s U.S. pension example changes the savings calculation for a couple. The Social Security Administration’s 2027 fact sheet estimates an average benefit of **$3,355 a month** for an aged couple in which both partners receive benefits. That is $40,260 a year. If the couple spends $80,000 annually, the remaining $39,740 multiplied by 25 produces a target of about **$993,500**, rather than $2 million. This is an illustrative calculation based on the graphic’s spending figure and an average benefit, not a personalized retirement forecast.
Pensions Change the Savings Target
The graphic presents a single savings total as if every dollar of retirement spending must come from investments. For retirees receiving public pensions, that can substantially overstate the amount their savings need to cover. The review’s U.S. example cuts the 25-times target roughly in half for a couple receiving average Social Security benefits, but individual benefits and eligibility differ.
The reverse concern applies to people who leave work early. The 25-times multiplier reflects a 4% initial withdrawal rate commonly tied to a retirement lasting about **30 years**. Someone retiring at 50 or 55 may need savings to last 35 or 40 years. Morningstar’s 2025 research, as cited in the review, gives lower starting rates for those longer periods: **3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years**. The resulting multipliers are 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending, respectively. Those figures depend on the research assumptions and are not guarantees.
For readers comparing countries, the missing details matter as much as the headline number. Housing, medical coverage, taxes, household size, pension eligibility and residency rules can all change the practical budget. A low estimated cost of living does not establish that someone can retire there on the graphic’s stated amount.
Popular right now
Ninja Flip Toaster Oven & Air Fryer, 8-in-1, Stainless Steel, SP151
Ninja DualBrew Pro Specialty Coffee Maker, Black, CFP301
Dyson V15 Detect Cordless Vacuum
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 25-Times Rule Works
The 4% rule describes a withdrawal approach: take 4% of savings in the first year of retirement, then adjust withdrawals for inflation in later years. Multiplying annual spending by 25 is the inverse calculation. It estimates the portfolio needed to fund that spending under the rule’s assumptions; it does not establish how much a particular person will spend or what income they will receive elsewhere.
The review also compares the graphic’s country estimates with price levels and residency requirements. In Meyer’s price-level model, Costa Rica and Spain have the same price level, while the graphic lists Costa Rica as **42% cheaper**. He also cites the Mexican consulate in Las Vegas, which asks for $4,630 a month in income per person for temporary residence—about twice the graphic’s $28,000 annual estimate for living in Mexico. These comparisons highlight different measures: a modelled price level or a visa income threshold does not directly verify a retirement budget.
The article’s separate AI-and-jobs framing is not established by the graphic. Meyer said he found no evidence that AI is causing older workers to be laid off in large numbers. He pointed instead to official data indicating that older workers who lose jobs find new work less often. The supplied material does not detail the underlying dataset, so it does not establish a direct causal link between AI and older workers’ employment outcomes.
““I cannot call the numbers false. I can only test whether they are plausible.””
— Thorsten Meyer, ThorstenMeyerAI.com
The Missing Budget Assumptions
The graphic does not identify who calculated its annual costs, what data they used, or when the estimates were measured. It is also unclear whether the budgets cover one person or a couple, rent or owned housing, health insurance, taxes, or other major expenses. Without those definitions, the figures cannot be compared reliably across countries or treated as personal savings advice.
The pension examples also rely on assumptions. The U.S. figure is an average for a couple where both receive benefits, while the UK calculation assumes two people qualify for the full new State Pension. Actual benefits depend on a person’s work and contribution history, and pension eligibility ages matter: future income does not cover expenses before payments begin. The review does not provide individual benefit estimates or account for every tax, investment return, health cost or residency condition.
The supplied material also ends partway through its description of Morningstar’s research. It gives the cited withdrawal rates and time horizons, but not the full methodology or all assumptions behind them. The figures should be read as research-based reference points reported by Meyer, not a guarantee of how long any portfolio will last.
What Retirees Should Verify
The review offers no announced update or response from the graphic’s creator. Until a source and method are provided, the country figures remain **unverified estimates**. Readers can check whether a later version adds documentation, but the supplied material does not say that one is planned.
For a personal estimate, the relevant next step is to build a budget around the individual’s household, likely housing and health costs, and the age they expect to stop working. They would then need to check their own public pension eligibility and expected benefit with the relevant authorities, account for any gap before benefits begin, and choose a withdrawal assumption matched to the retirement period. The graphic alone does not supply enough information to settle those questions.
Key Questions
No. The review found that $80,000 multiplied by 25 equals $2 million, but it could not trace the annual cost estimate to a source or method. The math is checkable; the underlying budget is not.
Why does the review calculate a lower U.S. target for some couples?
It subtracts an estimated $40,260 in annual Social Security benefits for an aged couple where both receive benefits from the assumed $80,000 annual spending, then multiplies the remaining $39,740 by 25. The resulting figure, about $993,500, depends on those assumptions and is not a universal target.
Does the 4% rule work for someone retiring at 50 or 55?
The rule is commonly associated with a roughly 30-year retirement. The review cites Morningstar research with lower starting withdrawal rates for 35- and 40-year periods, so 25 times annual spending may be too low for some early retirees. No withdrawal rate guarantees a particular outcome.
Does a lower-cost country in the graphic mean someone can retire there on that budget?
Not necessarily. The graphic does not define what its costs include, and residency rules may have separate income requirements. For example, the review says the Mexican consulate in Las Vegas asks for $4,630 a month per person for temporary residence, but visa thresholds and living costs are different measures.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
