Hong Kong, China vs Saudi Arabia: Paying taxes: Payments per year (number per year) - Score
Hong Kong, China
100
in 2019
Saudi Arabia
98.33
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
1st
Saudi Arabia rank
3rd
Paying taxes: Payments per year (number per year) - Score over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Saudi Arabia
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 100 against 98.33 in Saudi Arabia, a difference of 1.67.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Saudi Arabia ranks 3rd of 191 countries.
Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Saudi Arabia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 98.33 | 81.67 | 16.67 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 100 | 96.17 | 3.83 | Hong Kong, China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score, Hong Kong, China or Saudi Arabia?
- Hong Kong, China, at 100 against 98.33 in Saudi Arabia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score between Hong Kong, China and Saudi Arabia?
- 1.67, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Saudi Arabia?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Saudi Arabia rank globally for paying taxes: payments per year (number per year) - score?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Saudi Arabia ranks 3rd 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.