![]() | Taxation Stub‑class ( inactive) | ||||||
|
The USA entry appears to be grossly misleading. It appears to show just federal tax revenue, and the phrase "all levels" is incomprehensible. According to this link, http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history the true figure is closer to 35%. Given the natural interest in comparing the world's largest economy to other nations, to include only federal taxes makes a mockery of the whole table. In my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.221.200 ( talk) 13:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"total tax revenue" is not defined. Do you mean total tax revenue collected by the federal/national governement, or are state/provincial and other smaller units of government included? After all, they generally collect "taxes" too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.163.131 ( talk) 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
where is australia? It's there!
Where are Japan, Poland, Portugal, Netherlands, and Greece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.12.254 ( talk) 03:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a fundamental problem with this page, which is that it is dominated by statistics created by the right-wing US lobbying outfit The Heritage Foundation. It is absolutely in their best interests to make the US seem burdened by taxes relative to other sources. The World Bank, drawing from the International Monetary Fund and OECD estimates, puts the US at 10.2%, which ranks 11th out of 113 rated countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.42.155 ( talk) 00:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I was just wondering if the graphs plotting revenues against growth rates are relevant for this page? This is a page which gives the reader facts about tax revenues by nations, not one which discusses the effects of taxes on economic growth. Would these graphs not be more appropriate on a page about the effects of taxation, where the topic of using cross country comparisons to estimate the influence of taxes on growth can be discussed in more depth? Beanz1936 ( talk) 15:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is inconsistent in its definition of taxes. Social contributions are NOT taxes, they are in mostly contributions by individuals to their own retirement in countries that have publically run pensions systems. Simply put: if contributions in the exact same amount were given to privately run retirement companies to offer the exact same services, they would not appear as "taxes" in this table. The fact is that listing social contributions as taxes is a misleading way to improve the economic stats of countries that have privately run pensions services in comparison to those who have public ones. It is true that the OECD uses this criterion, which makes it difficult to adopt another method, BUT this Wikipedia article should at least be consistent and open about the criterion adopted, which is not what happens, for example, in the "Total revenue from direct and indirect taxes given as share of GDP in 2017" map, which does not mention social contributions, despite the source of that map ("Our World in Data") identifying it as "Total revenue from social contributions, direct and indirect taxes given as share of GDP." (For some reason, whoever chose to use this illustration decided to remove "social contributions" from the description.)
Please be open and consistent about the methodology used. Abueno97 ( talk) 10:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The figure for federal government take is approx. 25%, the 30% figure is for total taxation, fed., state and local.
I think the list states at the top it is percentage for federal/central government, but uncertain? will change? Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.142 ( talk) 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry two conflicting sources, OECD report says one thing ABS says another. I will leave it at 30% because the OECD is likely to be comparing like with like. However text at the top needs a change to reflect what the table is actually measuring, looking at the australian example it seems to be measuring total tax % of GDP, not just central/federal government tax % of GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.142 ( talk) 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The overall government tax rate as a percentage of GDP as reported in this table is misleading for several of the countries that do not have a unitary national tax system. For example, in the US, the table misses the substantial state and local taxes that would add another 10% or more to the total tax load as a percentage of GDP; ditto for Switzerland which has contonal and local taxes in addition to the federal taxes. While it may be difficult to find all the requisite data to make the table accurate, I would propose that we, at minimum, edit the article to reflect such shortcomings in the table. We do not want WP to provide false information. What do others think? N2e ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This 18:05, 22 January 2009 diff [1] removed many countries from the list. I suggest creating a column for the year, and putting back those countries. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the rank column. It makes it very time consuming to add more countries to the chart. That may be why people have been adding additional countries in other sections of the article outside the chart. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the countries listed in the Asian Development Bank's database, but managed to screw up the formatting. If anyone wants to take a shot at it, all the [6] references should be [5]. 08:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I put the chart in alphabetical order. It makes it easier to update the numbers without having to reorder the list. It also makes it easier to find the number for a specific country. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
User:CieloEstrellado added many nations to the chart. Thanks!
I added 2 columns to the chart. So there are currently 3 sources. 1 for each column. Here are the sources:
The 3 sources are fairly close to each other for the tax percentages. Some of the slight differences may be due to different years being used.
The only problem I see is with the Mexico numbers. One of the sources is wrong. I think it is the Heritage Foundation source. See the "fiscal freedom" section of the Mexico page. Compare its number with the OECD number. Maybe someone can email the Heritage Foundation and point out the problem. I think their tax percentage for Mexico is half of what it should be. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You really need to review the methodology for these calculations since both the Heritage Foundation and the OECD are missing a lot of taxes. For instance, The Fraser Institute in Canada calculates Canada's tax burden per GDP as 43% while it's listed as 34% here. See http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/6736.aspx
The cause of the discrepancy must be what the accounting standards for government in each jurisdiction count as "revenue." For instance, hypothecated taxes are likely missed (such as EI and CPP in Canada). The data in this chart are therefore unreliable for comparison purposes since it's probably only counting what revenue shows up in a government's Consolidated Revenue Fund/General Fund. G. Csikos, 13 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.83.68 ( talk) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In eyeballing the rates, it is probable that they are mix of gross tax rates and net tax rates, the difference (essentially) being social benefits (e.g. social security payments). If so, you need to get a consistent data base using a consistent methodology. Or, better, report both rates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.7 ( talk) 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As at 21 July 2010 the article had a neutrality disputed tag. I searched this Talk page for the word neutrality. There is nothing on this page to support the tag, contrary to what the tag says. I am removing the tag as there is no support for its listing or remaining. dinghy ( talk) 01:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Please make these tables the type with sort buttons at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.116.32 ( talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this but it can not seem correct. How can timor leste have a tax revenue of over 100% of their gdp? Also for the UK, it says 39%, but VAT revenue is supposed to be 87.7Bn, and the GDP is 2678Bn. So by this VAT revenue should be 8.4% of GDP, but on the VAT page it says it is 13.3% of GDP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_Added_Tax_(United_Kingdom)#Revenue
I wonder what is the source for the 33,8% indicated for Poland?
Freedom Foundation says it's 20,1 (and they're very much wrong about it, I did my own math and it doesn't sum up or it's summed under some very weird assumptions). agnus ( talk) 15:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of countries by tax revenue to GDP ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
If anyone wants to update this list, at least the European part, here is the newer data: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Total_tax_revenue_by_country,_1995-2016_%28%25_of_GDP%29.png — Ynhockey ( Talk) 14:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Footnote 4, as of the present version of this article, covers seven OECD countries most of which are not members of the European Union, such as Norway, Japan, and South Korea (but also EU member Sweden). Unfortunately, that editor made a common mistake, confusing the OECD's "General government revenue," which is what s/he used, and "Total tax revenue," which can be expressed as a percentage of GDP in the interactive tables at stats.oecd.org, and which corresponds to the subject of this article. They are not the same thing.
For example, if you look at the source of Footnote 4, we find it is the OECD's list of general government revenue for 2015. Sweden comes in at 49.8%, Norway 54.9%,, Korea 33.6%, etc., just as shown in this article (though it appears that Mexico was slightly mis-transcribed or the data was revised by OECD since this edit was placed in the article). However, if you go to stats.oecd.org and navigate to "Public Sector, Taxation, and Market Regulation," and thence to "Revenue Statistics - OECD Countries - Comparative Tables," you will find out that the ratio of total tax revenue (i.e., all levels of government, all taxes) to GDP for 2015 comes to 43.1% for Sweden, 38.4% for Norway, and 25.2% for Korea. These are substantial differences, and quite a big one, 16.5 points, for Norway.
The problem? "General government revenue" is the wrong data for this article, because governments have sources of revenue besides taxes. Both pieces of information are important to people, but this article is about tax revenue/GDP, not general government revenue. I can't tell you the non-tax sources of revenue for the seven countries covered, except that Norway owns 67% of the national oil company, Equinor, which is why the difference is so large for Norway. 100.0.240.242 ( talk) 00:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm on mobile and I'm not allowed to use sort buttons?? This is discrimination!!!! Centarus72 ( talk) 13:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Any major changes to the current classification should be proposed here. Archives908 ( talk) 23:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Is revenue of state companies included in the "tax" category or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.41.163 ( talk) 18:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Why are calculations for some countries like UK all over the place?
This article cites: Spain Tax Revenue % GDP - 33.7% UK Tax Revenue % GDP - 33.3%
Spain GDP - $1.8 trillion UK GDP - $3.1 trillion
Spain Tax Revenue - $628 billion UK Tax Revenue - $630 billion
I'm not too confident in my maths but I believe this could potentially maybe be wrong, but changing this will get reverted for own research, when clearly the primary research has toilet paper value. 145.40.150.167 ( talk) 02:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Taxation Stub‑class ( inactive) | ||||||
|
The USA entry appears to be grossly misleading. It appears to show just federal tax revenue, and the phrase "all levels" is incomprehensible. According to this link, http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history the true figure is closer to 35%. Given the natural interest in comparing the world's largest economy to other nations, to include only federal taxes makes a mockery of the whole table. In my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.221.200 ( talk) 13:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"total tax revenue" is not defined. Do you mean total tax revenue collected by the federal/national governement, or are state/provincial and other smaller units of government included? After all, they generally collect "taxes" too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.163.131 ( talk) 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
where is australia? It's there!
Where are Japan, Poland, Portugal, Netherlands, and Greece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.12.254 ( talk) 03:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a fundamental problem with this page, which is that it is dominated by statistics created by the right-wing US lobbying outfit The Heritage Foundation. It is absolutely in their best interests to make the US seem burdened by taxes relative to other sources. The World Bank, drawing from the International Monetary Fund and OECD estimates, puts the US at 10.2%, which ranks 11th out of 113 rated countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.42.155 ( talk) 00:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I was just wondering if the graphs plotting revenues against growth rates are relevant for this page? This is a page which gives the reader facts about tax revenues by nations, not one which discusses the effects of taxes on economic growth. Would these graphs not be more appropriate on a page about the effects of taxation, where the topic of using cross country comparisons to estimate the influence of taxes on growth can be discussed in more depth? Beanz1936 ( talk) 15:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is inconsistent in its definition of taxes. Social contributions are NOT taxes, they are in mostly contributions by individuals to their own retirement in countries that have publically run pensions systems. Simply put: if contributions in the exact same amount were given to privately run retirement companies to offer the exact same services, they would not appear as "taxes" in this table. The fact is that listing social contributions as taxes is a misleading way to improve the economic stats of countries that have privately run pensions services in comparison to those who have public ones. It is true that the OECD uses this criterion, which makes it difficult to adopt another method, BUT this Wikipedia article should at least be consistent and open about the criterion adopted, which is not what happens, for example, in the "Total revenue from direct and indirect taxes given as share of GDP in 2017" map, which does not mention social contributions, despite the source of that map ("Our World in Data") identifying it as "Total revenue from social contributions, direct and indirect taxes given as share of GDP." (For some reason, whoever chose to use this illustration decided to remove "social contributions" from the description.)
Please be open and consistent about the methodology used. Abueno97 ( talk) 10:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The figure for federal government take is approx. 25%, the 30% figure is for total taxation, fed., state and local.
I think the list states at the top it is percentage for federal/central government, but uncertain? will change? Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.142 ( talk) 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry two conflicting sources, OECD report says one thing ABS says another. I will leave it at 30% because the OECD is likely to be comparing like with like. However text at the top needs a change to reflect what the table is actually measuring, looking at the australian example it seems to be measuring total tax % of GDP, not just central/federal government tax % of GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.142 ( talk) 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The overall government tax rate as a percentage of GDP as reported in this table is misleading for several of the countries that do not have a unitary national tax system. For example, in the US, the table misses the substantial state and local taxes that would add another 10% or more to the total tax load as a percentage of GDP; ditto for Switzerland which has contonal and local taxes in addition to the federal taxes. While it may be difficult to find all the requisite data to make the table accurate, I would propose that we, at minimum, edit the article to reflect such shortcomings in the table. We do not want WP to provide false information. What do others think? N2e ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This 18:05, 22 January 2009 diff [1] removed many countries from the list. I suggest creating a column for the year, and putting back those countries. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the rank column. It makes it very time consuming to add more countries to the chart. That may be why people have been adding additional countries in other sections of the article outside the chart. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the countries listed in the Asian Development Bank's database, but managed to screw up the formatting. If anyone wants to take a shot at it, all the [6] references should be [5]. 08:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I put the chart in alphabetical order. It makes it easier to update the numbers without having to reorder the list. It also makes it easier to find the number for a specific country. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
User:CieloEstrellado added many nations to the chart. Thanks!
I added 2 columns to the chart. So there are currently 3 sources. 1 for each column. Here are the sources:
The 3 sources are fairly close to each other for the tax percentages. Some of the slight differences may be due to different years being used.
The only problem I see is with the Mexico numbers. One of the sources is wrong. I think it is the Heritage Foundation source. See the "fiscal freedom" section of the Mexico page. Compare its number with the OECD number. Maybe someone can email the Heritage Foundation and point out the problem. I think their tax percentage for Mexico is half of what it should be. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You really need to review the methodology for these calculations since both the Heritage Foundation and the OECD are missing a lot of taxes. For instance, The Fraser Institute in Canada calculates Canada's tax burden per GDP as 43% while it's listed as 34% here. See http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/6736.aspx
The cause of the discrepancy must be what the accounting standards for government in each jurisdiction count as "revenue." For instance, hypothecated taxes are likely missed (such as EI and CPP in Canada). The data in this chart are therefore unreliable for comparison purposes since it's probably only counting what revenue shows up in a government's Consolidated Revenue Fund/General Fund. G. Csikos, 13 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.83.68 ( talk) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In eyeballing the rates, it is probable that they are mix of gross tax rates and net tax rates, the difference (essentially) being social benefits (e.g. social security payments). If so, you need to get a consistent data base using a consistent methodology. Or, better, report both rates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.7 ( talk) 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As at 21 July 2010 the article had a neutrality disputed tag. I searched this Talk page for the word neutrality. There is nothing on this page to support the tag, contrary to what the tag says. I am removing the tag as there is no support for its listing or remaining. dinghy ( talk) 01:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Please make these tables the type with sort buttons at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.116.32 ( talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this but it can not seem correct. How can timor leste have a tax revenue of over 100% of their gdp? Also for the UK, it says 39%, but VAT revenue is supposed to be 87.7Bn, and the GDP is 2678Bn. So by this VAT revenue should be 8.4% of GDP, but on the VAT page it says it is 13.3% of GDP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_Added_Tax_(United_Kingdom)#Revenue
I wonder what is the source for the 33,8% indicated for Poland?
Freedom Foundation says it's 20,1 (and they're very much wrong about it, I did my own math and it doesn't sum up or it's summed under some very weird assumptions). agnus ( talk) 15:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of countries by tax revenue to GDP ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
If anyone wants to update this list, at least the European part, here is the newer data: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Total_tax_revenue_by_country,_1995-2016_%28%25_of_GDP%29.png — Ynhockey ( Talk) 14:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Footnote 4, as of the present version of this article, covers seven OECD countries most of which are not members of the European Union, such as Norway, Japan, and South Korea (but also EU member Sweden). Unfortunately, that editor made a common mistake, confusing the OECD's "General government revenue," which is what s/he used, and "Total tax revenue," which can be expressed as a percentage of GDP in the interactive tables at stats.oecd.org, and which corresponds to the subject of this article. They are not the same thing.
For example, if you look at the source of Footnote 4, we find it is the OECD's list of general government revenue for 2015. Sweden comes in at 49.8%, Norway 54.9%,, Korea 33.6%, etc., just as shown in this article (though it appears that Mexico was slightly mis-transcribed or the data was revised by OECD since this edit was placed in the article). However, if you go to stats.oecd.org and navigate to "Public Sector, Taxation, and Market Regulation," and thence to "Revenue Statistics - OECD Countries - Comparative Tables," you will find out that the ratio of total tax revenue (i.e., all levels of government, all taxes) to GDP for 2015 comes to 43.1% for Sweden, 38.4% for Norway, and 25.2% for Korea. These are substantial differences, and quite a big one, 16.5 points, for Norway.
The problem? "General government revenue" is the wrong data for this article, because governments have sources of revenue besides taxes. Both pieces of information are important to people, but this article is about tax revenue/GDP, not general government revenue. I can't tell you the non-tax sources of revenue for the seven countries covered, except that Norway owns 67% of the national oil company, Equinor, which is why the difference is so large for Norway. 100.0.240.242 ( talk) 00:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm on mobile and I'm not allowed to use sort buttons?? This is discrimination!!!! Centarus72 ( talk) 13:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Any major changes to the current classification should be proposed here. Archives908 ( talk) 23:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Is revenue of state companies included in the "tax" category or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.41.163 ( talk) 18:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Why are calculations for some countries like UK all over the place?
This article cites: Spain Tax Revenue % GDP - 33.7% UK Tax Revenue % GDP - 33.3%
Spain GDP - $1.8 trillion UK GDP - $3.1 trillion
Spain Tax Revenue - $628 billion UK Tax Revenue - $630 billion
I'm not too confident in my maths but I believe this could potentially maybe be wrong, but changing this will get reverted for own research, when clearly the primary research has toilet paper value. 145.40.150.167 ( talk) 02:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)