Denmark vs Kazakhstan: Paying taxes: Payments per year (number per year) - Score

Denmark
88.33
in 2019
Kazakhstan
88.33
in 2019
Denmark rank
55th
Kazakhstan rank
55th

Paying taxes: Payments per year (number per year) - Score over time

  • Denmark
  • Kazakhstan
020406080100200520122019

How they compare

Denmark currently reports 88.33 against 88.33 in Kazakhstan, a difference of 0.

Across all 15 years both countries report, Kazakhstan has been ahead every year.

Denmark ranks 55th and Kazakhstan ranks 55th of 188 countries.

Kazakhstan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Denmark Kazakhstan Difference Ahead
2000s 88.33 93.33 5 Kazakhstan
2010s 88.33 90.83 2.5 Kazakhstan

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score, Denmark or Kazakhstan?
Denmark, at 88.33 against 88.33 in Kazakhstan as of 2019.
What is the difference in paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score between Denmark and Kazakhstan?
0, with Denmark ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and Kazakhstan?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Denmark and Kazakhstan rank globally for paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score?
Denmark ranks 55th and Kazakhstan ranks 55th of 188 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

Indicator
Paying taxes: Payments per year (number per year) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 2,783 data points, 2005–2019
Last refreshed

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.