Know what actually lands
Enter your gross salary once. We apply the enacted income-tax bands and employee social contributions for each country, show the arithmetic band by band, and name the authority behind every rate.
Your take-home
Live · in browserEstimates for a single person with employment income and no dependants or extra reliefs. Not tax advice.
Why you can trust
the number
Three commitments, all of them checkable on this page rather than promised on an about page.
Cited, not scraped
Where a jurisdiction is sourced, every band comes from the authority itself, with the date we read it printed next to the result: HMRC for the United Kingdom, and the OECD Tax Database for Australia, CH, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Hungary, Israel and Latvia. The remaining jurisdictions are prototype figures and say so on their own pages.
Auditable arithmetic
Open any deduction to see the band, the rate applied to it, and the amount. If it doesn't match your payslip, you can see exactly which line disagrees.
Private by construction
The maths runs in your browser. There is no account, no salary sent to a server, and no analytics recording what you typed.
Every line expands
Effective vs marginal
At £66,300 your average rate is 26.1%. The next GBP 100 you earn is taxed at 42%. Grid lines mark 20 / 40 / 60%.
Tax freedom day
Everything you earn up to this date covers your tax and social contributions for the year. After it, the money is yours.
$85,000 gross, side by side
| Jurisdiction | Income tax | Social | Effective | Net (USD) | Freedom day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0 | $0 | 0% | $85,000 | 1 Jan | ||
| $14,246 | $6,503 | 24.4% | $64,251 | 30 Mar | ||
| $17,887 | $4,277 | 26.1% | $62,835 | 5 Apr | ||
| $23,958 | $17,027 | 48.2% | $44,015 | 25 Jun |
Net figures converted to USD at indicative mid-market rates for comparability. Local-currency amounts appear in the breakdown above.
Tax is a location
decision too
Same salary, different jurisdiction. Here is where your gross goes furthest, and what it actually buys once local prices are in the picture.
Optimisation score
5/10Ranked 6 of 10 on take-home at this gross. 3 jurisdictions we cover would leave you with more.
Extra annual take-home at the same gross, before cost of living. Tap to add it to the comparison.
Real purchasing power
Net pay divided by a country cost-of-living index (US = 100), shown in USD. Directional only, the city you choose moves this more than tax does.
Questions, answered straight
Read the methodologyWhat this site holds today
Every number on this site is a record in a store rather than a figure somebody typed. There are 959 rules in it right now, read from 5 authorities, and each one carries the document it came from, the section within that document, the date it was read, the sentence it was read from and a hash of that sentence as it stood on the day. The whole store is published at /data/ as a single file, so if your arithmetic and ours disagree you can find the disagreement without our help.
9 jurisdictions are computed rather than described. Each has been checked against a series it had no part in producing: the OECD publishes, for a single person with no children at 67%, 100% and 167% of the average wage, the average tax rates actually taken from them. We compute the same person from the statutory schedule and require the answer to land within half a percentage point. 7 of the 9 reproduce it exactly; the worst of them misses by 0.33 percentage points. A jurisdiction that stops reproducing it loses its page on the next build, and that is not a policy anyone has to remember to apply.
31 jurisdictions are refused, and the refusals are published rather than quietly absent. 26 of them fail by a measured amount and the number is on the methodology page for each. The nearest are Chile at 0.75pp, Japan at 0.83pp, New Zealand at 0.93pp, Poland at 1.22pp, Luxembourg at 1.29pp. Those are a work list, not an apology: each one names exactly how far a page of ours would be from the truth, which is more than a site that publishes all of them can tell you about any of them.
Our arithmetic against the OECD, at the average wage
This is the table nobody else in this niche publishes, and it is the reason to trust the rest of the site rather than a decoration on top of it. Every column below is a rate for the same person: single, no children, earning exactly the average wage of the country in question. The left figure is what our engine computes from the statutory schedule. The right figure is what the OECD publishes as the average income tax rate actually taken from that person. The two were produced independently and neither was fitted to the other.
| Jurisdiction | Ours | OECD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 23.52% | 23.52% | none |
| Colombia | 0.00% | 0.00% | none |
| Costa Rica | 0.00% | 0.00% | none |
| Czechia | 9.73% | 9.73% | none |
| Hungary | 15.00% | 15.00% | none |
| Israel | 12.66% | 12.66% | none |
| Latvia | 15.50% | 15.50% | none |
| Switzerland | 11.65% | 11.65% | none |
| United Kingdom | 17.55% | 17.55% | none |
The same comparison is run at 67% and at 167% of the average wage, not only at 100%, because a schedule can be right in the middle and wrong at the ends. That is exactly how the worst error this site has made stayed invisible: an allowance that withdraws with income is correct at a low salary and increasingly wrong above the withdrawal threshold, and a single test point would have passed it.
Two things this site does that a calculator does not
272 United Kingdom salary pages
One page for every salary from £10,000 to £990,000, each computed band by band from the HMRC schedules rather than looked up in a table. A page does not merely state the take-home figure: it shows what each band takes and its share of the total, the same salary under every tax year in the store so fiscal drag is a number rather than a topic, what a bonus of six different sizes actually keeps, what the same money would pay as one job against two, a cumulative monthly PAYE table, and hourly rates on three contract patterns. Start here.
United States expatriate reporting
A US citizen abroad owes two systems at once, and the second one is a reporting regime with thresholds that are routinely misstated by pages that rank well for them. These guides state each threshold with the document that set it and the tax year it applies to, and where we hold no rule for a fact, the fact is not stated at all. Every guide.
- Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, tax year by tax year. The foreign earned income exclusion is $132,900 for tax year 2026, $130,000 for 2025 and $126,500 for 2024, each read from the revenue procedure that set it.
- The FBAR threshold, and the word that trips people up. The FBAR threshold is $10,000 in aggregate across all foreign financial accounts, tested at any point in the year rather than at year end.
- Form 8938 thresholds, all ten of them. Form 8938 has ten thresholds, not one: filing status crossed with whether you live abroad crossed with whether the test is the last day of the year or any time during it.
- The foreign tax credit, and when you can skip Form 1116. A foreign tax credit of $300 or less ($600 filing jointly) can be claimed straight on the return with no Form 1116.
- Streamlined filing: three returns, six FBARs, and one test that decides the penalty. The streamlined procedures require 3 years of returns and 6 years of FBARs.
- Claiming a tax treaty benefit, and the disclosure that goes with it. A treaty-based return position generally has to be disclosed on Form 8833.
- Form 3520, and the two thresholds that are not the same number. A gift from a foreign individual is reportable above $100,000.
- PFICs, Form 8621, and why a foreign index fund is the problem. Form 8621 is not required where your aggregate PFIC stock is worth $25,000 or less, or $50,000 or less on a joint return, and there is no excess distribution or disposition.
- Controlled foreign corporations, and the two percentages that decide everything. A United States shareholder owns 10% or more of a foreign corporation by vote or value.
- Renouncing US citizenship, and the three tests that decide what it costs. A covered expatriate is somebody whose average annual net income tax exceeds $211,000 for 2026, or whose net worth is $2,000,000 or more, or who cannot certify 5 years of tax compliance.
How a figure gets from a document onto this page
The failure worth preventing on a site like this is not a wrong number. It is a plausible one. A calculator that quietly serves last year's allowance produces an answer no reader can tell apart from the right one, and it will keep producing it for years under a green badge. Everything below is designed around making that impossible rather than unlikely.
A figure is extracted from the authority's own document by a script, never typed. The sentence containing it becomes the rule's quote and is archived under its own hash, so the citation survives the page being reorganised or taken down. The calculation then reads rules through a lens that records every rule it touched, and the citations you see under a number are generated from that record. A page cannot cite a source the arithmetic did not use, and it cannot use one it does not show you.
A missing rule is a build failure rather than a fallback. There is no default value anywhere in the calculation. That sounds severe until you consider what the alternative looks like from the outside, which is a page that renders fine.
Nine gates run before anything is published and the build refuses on any failure. They check the arithmetic against worked examples at several incomes; compare every rule against a separately published compilation of the same law and record each disagreement rather than resolving it silently; reproduce the OECD's published outcome for a single person at three incomes; fail the build when a rule a live page computes with is past its own maximum age; check that what is rendered matches what was computed; and measure the pages of each type against each other, because a page type that is a template with the numbers changed is a documented hard stop and not an aesthetic complaint. Each of the nine is described here, including what it caught in this site's own work.
Which authorities have actually been read
Listing authorities is the easiest sentence to write on a tax site and the least checkable, so this list is generated from the store rather than typed. Every name below appears because at least one figure on this site was read from a document that authority published, and each of those figures carries the document, the locator and the date on the page that uses it.
- European Central Bank
- Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, via IRS
- HM Revenue and Customs
- Internal Revenue Service
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Where a body compiles national law rather than enacting it, that is recorded on the rule and it changes what the rule may claim: a compiled figure never carries high confidence, and a national ingest supersedes it the moment one exists. The full list of every document read, with its locator and its retrieval date, is on the sources page.
What this site will not do
Publish a jurisdiction it cannot check
Two jurisdictions were live for a day before the reconciliation gate existed. When it ran, Lithuania was showing an income tax rate of 13.70% where the OECD publishes 19.22% for the same person, because the allowance withdraws with income and the published schedule does not say so. Both were withdrawn the same hour. Absent beats plausible, every time.
Claim a reviewer it does not have
There is no accountant on the masthead and no professional body behind any figure here. A tax site that implies a credential it does not hold is making the one claim a reader cannot check, on the subject where an unverifiable claim does the most damage. What is on offer instead is checkability, and it is engineered rather than promised.
Round a hard case into a simple one
Where a jurisdiction's employee social security is real and not modelled, the page says the figure is not take-home pay, in the same size type as the figure. A disclaimer somewhere else does not repair a wrong label on the number itself, because the reader believes the big figure and not the small print underneath it.
Written and maintained by Nkosi Ndwandwe, who is not a qualified tax adviser and does not claim to be. The most recent figure behind this site was read from its source on 06 September 2026, which is the date this page reports as its last modification. Everything here can be checked against the document it came from without asking us anything.