Today we examine how European countries rank on consumption taxes, continuing our map series on our recently published 2020 International Tax Competitiveness Index (ITCI). The ITCI measures and compares the competitiveness and neutrality of all 36 OECD countries’ tax systems, looking at corporate income taxes, individual taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and the international tax system.
The ITCI’s consumption tax component compares the rate, base, and complexity of the value-added tax (VAT)/sales tax across OECD countries. While in some countries—such as the United States—consumption taxes take the form of a sales tax, all European countries covered in today’s map levy a VAT.
According to our Index, Switzerland has the best-structured consumption tax among OECD countries. At a rate of 7.7 percent, Switzerland levies the lowest VAT rate of all European OECD countries. (The United States has the lowest sales tax rate in the OECD at an average of 7.4 percent.) The Swiss VAT is levied on 70 percent of final consumption, making it the OECD country with the fifth broadest consumption tax base. Switzerland’s VAT is the easiest to comply with among OECD countries, requiring on average only eight hours a year in compliance time.
Poland’s VAT, by contrast, is characterized by a high rate (23 percent), relatively narrow base (51 percent of final consumption), and high complexity (172 hours annual compliance time). As a result, Poland ranks last in the ITCI’s consumption tax component.
Click here to see an interactive version of OECD countries’ consumption tax rankings, then click on your country for more information about what the strengths and weaknesses of its tax system are and how it compares to the top and bottom five countries in the OECD.
To see whether your country’s consumption tax rank has improved in recent years, check out the table below. To learn more about how we determined these rankings, read our full methodology here.
| OECD Country | 2019 Rank | 2020 Rank | 2021 Rank | Change from 2020 to 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia (AU) | 7 | 7 | 7 | 0 |
| Austria (AT) | 11 | 11 | 13 | -2 |
| Belgium (BE) | 26 | 30 | 30 | 0 |
| Canada (CA) | 9 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| Chile (CL) | 31 | 28 | 29 | -1 |
| Colombia (CO) | 22 | 22 | 20 | 2 |
| Czech Republic (CZ) | 35 | 35 | 35 | 0 |
| Denmark (DK) | 17 | 17 | 17 | 0 |
| Estonia (EE) | 8 | 9 | 9 | 0 |
| Finland (FI) | 13 | 14 | 15 | -1 |
| France (FR) | 20 | 21 | 21 | 0 |
| Germany (DE) | 12 | 10 | 11 | -1 |
| Greece (GR) | 32 | 32 | 32 | 0 |
| Hungary (HU) | 36 | 36 | 36 | 0 |
| Iceland (IS) | 18 | 19 | 19 | 0 |
| Ireland (IE) | 24 | 24 | 25 | -1 |
| Israel (IL) | 15 | 12 | 12 | 0 |
| Italy (IT) | 25 | 29 | 28 | 1 |
| Japan (JP) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Korea (KR) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Latvia (LV) | 28 | 27 | 27 | 0 |
| Lithuania (LT) | 27 | 25 | 24 | 1 |
| Luxembourg (LU) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Mexico (MX) | 29 | 26 | 26 | 0 |
| Netherlands (NL) | 10 | 15 | 14 | 1 |
| New Zealand (NZ) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Norway (NO) | 19 | 18 | 18 | 0 |
| Poland (PL) | 37 | 37 | 37 | 0 |
| Portugal (PT) | 33 | 33 | 33 | 0 |
| Slovak Republic (SK) | 34 | 34 | 34 | 0 |
| Slovenia (SI) | 30 | 31 | 31 | 0 |
| Spain (ES) | 14 | 13 | 10 | 3 |
| Sweden (SE) | 16 | 16 | 16 | 0 |
| Switzerland (CH) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Turkey (TR) | 23 | 20 | 23 | -3 |
| United Kingdom (GB) | 21 | 23 | 22 | 1 |
Was this page helpful to you?
Thank You!
The Tax Foundation works hard to provide insightful tax policy analysis. Our work depends on support from members of the public like you. Would you consider contributing to our work?
Contribute to the Tax Foundation
Share This Article!
Let us know how we can better serve you!
We work hard to make our analysis as useful as possible. Would you consider telling us more about how we can do better?