Georgia vs Guinea-Bissau: Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score

Georgia
74.19
in 2019
Guinea-Bissau
73.88
in 2019
Georgia rank
105th
Guinea-Bissau rank
108th

Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score over time

  • Georgia
  • Guinea-Bissau
020406080200520122019

How they compare

Georgia currently reports 74.19 against 73.88 in Guinea-Bissau, a difference of 0.31.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Guinea-Bissau ahead.

Georgia ranks 105th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 108th of 188 countries.

Guinea-Bissau has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Georgia Guinea-Bissau Difference Ahead
2000s 45.87 73.88 28.01 Guinea-Bissau
2010s 60.7 73.88 13.18 Guinea-Bissau

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score, Georgia or Guinea-Bissau?
Georgia, at 74.19 against 73.88 in Guinea-Bissau as of 2019.
What is the difference in paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score between Georgia and Guinea-Bissau?
0.31, with Georgia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Georgia and Guinea-Bissau?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Georgia and Guinea-Bissau rank globally for paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score?
Georgia ranks 105th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 108th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Paying taxes: Time (hours 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: Time (hours 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 time to comply with tax laws 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.