Marshall Islands vs Singapore: Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score

Marshall Islands
98.92
in 2019
Singapore
97.68
in 2019
Marshall Islands rank
10th
Singapore rank
12th

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

  • Marshall Islands
  • Singapore
020406080100200520122019

How they compare

Marshall Islands currently reports 98.92 against 97.68 in Singapore, a difference of 1.24.

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

Marshall Islands ranks 10th and Singapore ranks 12th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Marshall Islands Singapore Difference Ahead
2000s 87.79 97.79 10 Singapore
2010s 92.49 95.77 3.28 Singapore

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score, Marshall Islands or Singapore?
Marshall Islands, at 98.92 against 97.68 in Singapore as of 2019.
What is the difference in paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score between Marshall Islands and Singapore?
1.24, with Marshall Islands ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Marshall Islands and Singapore?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Marshall Islands and Singapore rank globally for paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score?
Marshall Islands ranks 10th and Singapore ranks 12th 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.