Bangladesh vs Bosnia and Herzegovina: Paying taxes: Payments per year (number per year) - Score
Bangladesh
50
in 2019
Bosnia and Herzegovina
50
in 2019
Bangladesh rank
131st
Bosnia and Herzegovina rank
131st
Paying taxes: Payments per year (number per year) - Score over time
- Bangladesh
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
How they compare
Bangladesh currently reports 50 against 50 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Bangladesh ahead.
Bangladesh ranks 131st and Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 131st of 191 countries.
Bangladesh has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bangladesh | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 49.67 | 13.33 | 36.33 | Bangladesh |
| 2010s | 49.67 | 35.5 | 14.17 | Bangladesh |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score, Bangladesh or Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- Bangladesh, at 50 against 50 in Bosnia and Herzegovina as of 2019.
- What is the difference in paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score between Bangladesh and Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- 0, with Bangladesh ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bangladesh and Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Bangladesh and Bosnia and Herzegovina rank globally for paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score?
- Bangladesh ranks 131st and Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 131st of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Paying taxes: Payments per year (number per year) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for tax payments benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.