Netherlands vs United Kingdom: Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score

Netherlands
89.18
in 2019
United Kingdom
89.95
in 2019
Netherlands rank
29th
United Kingdom rank
27th

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

  • Netherlands
  • United Kingdom
020406080100200520122019

How they compare

United Kingdom currently reports 89.95 against 89.18 in Netherlands, a difference of 0.77.

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

Netherlands ranks 29th and United Kingdom ranks 27th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Netherlands United Kingdom Difference Ahead
2000s 75.92 91.96 16.04 United Kingdom
2010s 88.79 91.21 2.41 United Kingdom

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score, Netherlands or United Kingdom?
United Kingdom, at 89.95 against 89.18 in Netherlands as of 2019.
What is the difference in paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score between Netherlands and United Kingdom?
0.77, with United Kingdom ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Netherlands and United Kingdom?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Netherlands and United Kingdom rank globally for paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score?
Netherlands ranks 29th and United Kingdom ranks 27th 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.