•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Based on the OECD Taxing Wages 2026 report, Euronews Business compares personal income tax rates across European countries. The figures are calculated on gross income before social contributions are deducted.
The first scenario covers a single person with no children earning 100% of the average wage. In 2025, the personal income tax rate on pre-tax wages across 27 European countries (including 22 EU member states) ranged from 6.6% in Poland to 35.3% in Denmark.
The average tax rate for the 22 EU countries analyzed was 17.2%, compared with an OECD average of 15.5%.
Denmark was the only country in the group with a personal income tax rate above 30%. Iceland and Belgium were also in the higher range, at 27.1% and 25.6% respectively. Other countries above 20% included Estonia (21.6%), Finland (21.1%), Ireland (21.0%), and Norway (20.4%).
Among major European economies, Italy and the United Kingdom were above the EU average, at 19.1% and 17.6% respectively. Germany matched the EU average at 17.2%, while Spain (17.1%) and France (16.7%) were slightly lower.
Poland had the lowest rate at 6.6%. The Czech Republic was also in the lower group at 9.7%, while Switzerland and Slovakia were both below 12%.
In most cases, a two-child couple with only one earner faces a much lower personal income tax on gross wages than a single person with no children. For the 22 EU member states, the average personal income tax rate on gross wages for this group was 11%, compared with 17.2% for single, no child. In the OECD, the corresponding figures were 11% versus 15.5% for singles.
Within this scenario, the tax rate ranged from -6.5% in Slovakia to 31.8% in Denmark. A negative rate indicates that after tax credits and child allowances, the taxpayer pays no personal income tax and may even receive money from the tax system.
Germany recorded a very low tax liability at 0.7%. Other countries below 5% included Poland (1.1%), the Czech Republic (3.3%), Portugal (4.5%), and Slovenia (4.7%).
Conversely, some countries still showed relatively high rates for this group: Estonia (21.6%), Finland (21.0%), and Iceland and Norway (both 20.4%).
The third scenario is a two-child couple where both work and each person earns 100% of the average wage. Compared with the single, no child group, this scenario pays slightly less tax.
Across the 22 EU member states, the average personal income tax rate for this group was 15.5%. The corresponding OECD figure was 14.3%.
Rates varied widely, from 4.7% in Slovakia to 35.3% in Denmark.
According to economist Alex Mengden of Tax Foundation, in countries with flat-rate taxes, a two-child household typically pays the same personal income tax regardless of whether only one or both spouses work. In countries with progressive taxation, where higher income is taxed at higher rates, two-earner households usually pay more than single-income households.
To assess how dependents affect tax obligations, the report compares two groups: single, no children and a two-child couple where only one works.
In some countries, the tax-rate gap was substantial. Slovakia showed about 17.4 percentage points of difference, while Germany recorded 16.5 percentage points. Luxembourg had a 12 percentage point gap and Belgium 11.8 percentage points, with all four countries above 10 percentage points.
In contrast, tax rates did not change in Estonia, Norway, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Turkey.
Mengden said the difference between a single worker with no children and a two-child, two-earner family mainly reflects the degree of child support delivered through personal income tax policy.
He added that in some countries—Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and Turkey—the rate does not change between the two groups not because these countries provide less child support. Instead, child support is delivered through other means such as public services, direct subsidies, or free childcare.

Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…