TL;DR
Get smart everyday buys delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A graphic listing annual retirement costs and savings targets for 18 countries uses a consistent formula: each total is 25 times the annual cost. But its annual estimates have no cited source or clear definition, and the calculation leaves out state pensions. The figures are not independently verifiable, and the 25-times rule may be too optimistic for people retiring early.
A viral graphic that assigns annual retirement costs and savings targets to 18 countries uses a consistent calculation, but its underlying cost estimates cannot be verified because it provides no source or methodology, according to a fact-check published by Thorsten Meyer on November 4. The graphic also leaves out state pensions and does not say whether its figures describe a single person or a couple, making its headline savings targets difficult to apply to individual retirement plans.
The graphic 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 listed total is the annual cost multiplied by 25, with the result rounded. That corresponds to the familiar 4% rule: withdraw 4% of savings in the first year, then adjust withdrawals for inflation, with the approach intended to cover about 30 years.
That arithmetic does not verify the annual costs. Meyer said he could find no traceable source or explanation of the assumptions behind them, so he assessed plausibility rather than establishing that the figures are false. The graphic does not specify household size, housing tenure, or whether healthcare, taxes and other costs are included.
For comparison, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey reported average spending of $64,445 in 2025 for households headed by someone aged 65 or older. 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. Meyer said this makes $80,000 plausible for some couples, but high for a single retiree; the figures do not settle whether the graphic assumes rent or other particular expenses.
A viral retirement graphic leaves key costs unclear
Its savings totals follow a consistent formula, but the annual cost estimates have no cited source, unclear assumptions and omit state pensions.
What the graphic claims
These examples show the formula at work; their annual cost estimates remain unverified.
| Country | Annual cost | Savings target |
|---|---|---|
| United States | $80,000 | $2 million |
| United Kingdom | $55,000 | $1.4 million |
| Thailand | $24,000 | $600,000 |
| Kenya | $14,000 | $350,000 |
Pensions change the target
Subtracting pension income from spending can sharply reduce the amount a household needs to fund from savings.
The graphic uses $80,000 a year as the couple’s assumed need.
The cited average Social Security benefit for an aged couple is $40,260 a year.
A $39,740 annual gap times 25 gives an illustrative $993,500 savings target.
A longer retirement needs a closer look
The 25-times rule reflects a 30-year horizon; cited research estimates lower starting withdrawal rates for longer retirements.
Check the assumptions first
The fact-check could not verify the graphic’s annual costs or determine who and what they cover.
- Find a published source and method for each country’s cost estimate.
- Check whether the estimate is for one person or a couple, and whether it assumes owning or renting.
- Confirm which costs, including healthcare and taxes, are included.
- Estimate your own pension eligibility and benefit instead of relying on averages.
- Consider a longer withdrawal period if retiring early.
Pensions Change the Savings Target
Leaving pension income out can make a savings target look much higher than the amount a household needs to fund from its own investments. Meyer illustrated the difference using U.S. Social Security estimates cited in the fact-check: the Social Security Administration projected an average $3,355 monthly benefit for an aged couple in which both people receive benefits, starting in January 2027. That equals $40,260 a year.
If the graphic’s $80,000 annual cost is treated as a couple’s spending need, subtracting that projected benefit leaves $39,740 a year to be funded from savings. Applying the graphic’s 25-times formula produces a target of $993,500, rather than $2 million. This is an illustration based on the graphic’s assumptions and the cited average benefit, not a personalized estimate; actual benefits and expenses vary.
Meyer also applied the same approach to the UK. The government’s full new State Pension rate is £241.30 a week; someone whose National Insurance record began after April 2016 generally needs 35 qualifying years to receive the full rate. Two full pensions total £25,095.20 a year, which Meyer converted to about $33,676 using European Central Bank reference rates from November 2, 2026. Against the graphic’s $55,000 annual estimate, that leaves a gap of about $21,300, or roughly $533,000 at 25 times the gap. These examples show why a country-level savings figure without pension assumptions can mislead readers.
Products Worth Considering
Canon PIXMA PRO-200S Wireless Professional Inkjet Photo Printer
FLEXISPOT 60 × 24-Inch Electric Standing Desk, White
HP Sprocket Portable 2×3 Instant Photo Printer, Lilac, with ZINK Paper Bundle
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Rule Behind the Graphic
The 25-times calculation is based on a 4% initial withdrawal rate, not on proof that a particular household’s annual spending estimate is accurate. The rule’s intended time horizon matters. Meyer cited Morningstar’s 2025 research, which estimated starting withdrawal rates of 3.9% for a 30-year retirement, 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years. Those rates correspond to approximately 25.6, 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending, respectively.
That difference is relevant for people who stop working at 50 or 55 and may need savings to last longer than 30 years. Under the cited research, simply multiplying annual spending by 25 would produce a smaller target than the longer-horizon calculations. The figures are research estimates, not a guarantee that a portfolio will last or a forecast of any individual’s investment returns.
The country comparisons also rely on assumptions that are not shown. Meyer said his own price-level model gave Spain and Costa Rica the same price level, while the graphic listed Costa Rica as 42% cheaper. Without the graphic’s method, it is not possible to determine why the estimates differ or whether they compare the same household circumstances.
“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 Assumptions Limit Comparisons
The graphic’s annual costs remain unverified: no underlying study, calculation method or traceable author is identified in the material Meyer reviewed. It is also unclear whether each figure is meant for one person or two, whether retirees own or rent their homes, and which costs—such as healthcare and taxes—are included.
The pension examples do not resolve those gaps. They use an average U.S. benefit for a particular type of couple and the UK’s full new State Pension rate for two people who qualify for it. They should not be read as benefits every retiree receives. The graphic’s treatment of pensions in other countries is also not established by the fact-check’s examples.
The source material also raises concern about the 4% rule for early retirees, but the cited withdrawal-rate research does not predict outcomes for a specific person. Individual results depend on factors including spending, benefit eligibility and how long retirement lasts. The graphic’s connection to concerns about AI and job losses is similarly unproven: Meyer said he found no evidence in the material reviewed that AI is causing older workers to be laid off in large numbers. He said official data does show that older workers who lose a job find new work less often, but the supplied material does not give a specific rate or timeframe.
Verify Costs Before Using Targets
Readers considering the graphic’s figures should first look for a published method and comparable cost data for each country. A useful estimate would need to identify the household size, housing situation, included expenses and currency assumptions, then distinguish total spending from the amount that must come from savings after pensions or other income.
The next step for anyone applying the figures personally is to check their own expected pension eligibility and benefit amount, rather than assume they will receive the averages cited here. People considering retirement well before a conventional retirement age may also need to test a longer withdrawal period than 30 years, in light of the rates cited from Morningstar’s 2025 research.
No revised, fully sourced set of costs for all 18 countries is provided in the fact-check. Until the graphic’s author or another source publishes the underlying assumptions, its country rankings and annual cost figures should be treated as unverified estimates, not as a comparable retirement budget.
Key Questions
What did the viral retirement graphic claim?
It listed annual retirement costs and total savings targets for 18 countries. Examples included $80,000 a year and $2 million for the United States, and $24,000 a year and $600,000 for Thailand.
What part of the graphic could be checked?
The savings totals are generally the annual costs multiplied by 25, with rounding. That is consistent with a 4% initial withdrawal calculation, but it does not verify the annual cost estimates themselves.
Why does the fact-check say state pensions matter?
If a retiree receives pension income, savings may need to cover only the difference between that income and annual spending. In Meyer’s U.S. example, subtracting a projected $40,260 in annual Social Security for an aged couple from $80,000 leaves $39,740 for savings to fund.
Is 25 times annual spending enough for early retirement?
Not necessarily. The fact-check cites Morningstar’s 2025 estimates of lower starting withdrawal rates for 35- and 40-year retirement periods than for 30 years. Those estimates imply higher spending multiples, but do not guarantee a particular outcome.
Are the graphic’s country cost estimates false?
The fact-check does not establish that they are false. It says the annual figures cannot be independently verified from the graphic because sources and assumptions are missing.
Source: Thorsten Meyer AI
