© PeopleImage/Getty Images
Goldman Sachs Retirement Survey and Insights Report 2025 shows that working Americans aim to average income replacement rate About 57% in retirement. A large majority of respondents expect to live on less than half their working income, and only a minority target levels above 70%. The survey doesn’t set any benchmarks, but the contrast between what savers aim for and what retirees actually report creates a meaningful gap. Retirees surveyed receive about 60% of their pre-retirement income, and 71% say they are satisfied with that level, which suggests that many families may be underestimating what they will need or overestimating how far a low replacement rate can stretch.
The survey also makes clear that the roots of this shortcoming extend far beyond simple preferences. Workers face a set of competing priorities that constantly impact savings. Too high monthly expenses affect 67% of respondents. Financial hardship affects 64%. Taking care of family members and supporting them financially affects 62%. Credit card debt affects 58%. Payment of existing debt affects 57%. These pressures create the financial whirlpool that Goldman described, a structural pressure generated by rising costs in housing, health care, child care, and education. When these categories take up the bulk of income, the replacement target falls, not because it is optimal, but because it seems unattainable.
Why is 57% replacement reduced?
The report highlights two forces that make the low replacement target risky. First, there is the rising cost of retirement itself. The average expenditure of households aged 65 and over has increased by about 3.6% annually since 2000, and the estimated total cost of retirement is projected to increase by about 4% per year.
The second is longevity, as the average retirement length has increased from 17.5 years in 2000 to 19.2 years in 2023, with projections indicating further growth. A plan designed to compensate for only half of pre-retirement income will have to stretch out a retirement that is both longer and more expensive than a generation ago.
Retirees in the survey offer a useful reference point. They report receiving approximately 60% of their former income and describe their lifestyle as the same or better than before retirement in 82% of cases. These numbers show that many families can live comfortably on less than the traditional 70%–80% rule, but also that the 57% target leaves little margin for rising costs or unexpected longevity.
stratified income floor
Goldman’s analysis points to a tiered income structure rather than a single withdrawal rule. Report explains how protected lifetime income can be integrated with traditional investment withdrawals Increase Retirement Income By approximately 23%, as well as improving wealth protection and reducing the extent of negative consequences. The idea is not to replace market risk, but to create a stable base that supports necessary spending and allows the investment portfolio to focus on long-term growth.
This approach is consistent with the broader themes of the survey. Workers face structural barriers that limit how much they can save. Retirees face rising expense trajectories and longer life spans. A tiered income structure addresses both sides of the equation by combining stability with growth potential.
What a tiered plan looks like in practice
The report’s outline breaks down retirement income into coordinated components. One component is the guaranteed base, which includes Social Security, any pension benefits, and a protected lifetime income product sized to cover essential expenses such as housing, utilities, food, and health care premiums. Another component is the investment portfolio that supports withdrawals and provides the growth needed to offset rising costs over time. When a portion of the income is guaranteed, the remaining portfolio can be managed more intentionally for long-term objectives rather than being forced to meet every short-term need.
The behavioral findings in the survey reinforce this framework. Retirees with personalized retirement plans report a savings-to-income ratio of 5.92x, compared with 4.68x for those without a plan, with the plan premium being about 27%. Among workers, 83% of those with a personalized plan believe they are on track for retirement, compared to 41% of those without a plan. Planning is concerned with both high savings and high confidence, and the layered income approach is one of the tools that supports that structure.
closing the gap
The survey makes clear that many workers are setting income replacement goals that may be too low for the environment in which they will retire. Also, it shows that targeted interventions can change the numbers. Saving first improves results by about 14%. The personalized plan adds about 27%. Financial grit, the term for consistent, flexible behavior in the report, is linked to 49% greater retirement savings. Integrating Protected Lifetime Income can increase retirement income by approximately 23%.
Overall, these findings point to a practical conclusion. Bridging the gap between the 57% goal and a sustainable retirement is less about finding a single benchmark and more about combining multiple levers: setting a realistic income goal, structuring a tiered income level, sequencing competing priorities over time, and writing the plan so it can survive the next round of instability or budget pressure.
The survey’s message is simple: Replacement rates aren’t just a number, they’re the result of structure, behavior and planning that starts long before the first retirement check arrives.