Hong Kong vs Singapore
$100,000 of real income is HK$576,759 in Hong Kong and $102,381 in Singapore. After income tax and every compulsory contribution, Hong Kong leaves you $10,075 a year more to spend than Singapore — and what each tax buys back is the half of the question no dataset prices.
Hong Kong leaves $10,075 a year more than Singapore on the same real income, after income tax and compulsory social contributions.
Hong Kong leaves you $10,075 a year more to spend than Singapore
The figures on this page are in international dollars, and that choice is the whole reason the comparison means anything. Converting HKD to SGD at the exchange rate would measure what your money is worth if you carried it abroad. What you want to know is what it buys where you earn it, and for that the right conversion is purchasing power parity — a basket of what households actually buy, priced in each country.
So: $100,000 of real income is HK$576,759 in Hong Kong and $102,381 in Singapore. Those two salaries buy the same thing before tax. They do not buy the same thing after it.
After everything compulsory — income tax and the social contributions that come off a payslip — Hong Kong take-home is HK$506,420 and Singaporean take-home is $79,581. Back in the common unit that is $87,804 against $77,729, a difference of $10,075 a year and $100,749 over 10 years.
Grey columns are what a year of Hong Kong and a year of Singapore are worth in the same money. The bars between them are each thing that changes, in the order it changes: green adds, amber takes away.
Per month, which is how anyone actually reads a payslip: HK$42,202 in Hong Kong and $6,632 in Singapore — $7,317 and $6,477 once both are put in the same unit. The $840 a month between them is the figure worth carrying into a negotiation.
Singapore takes 22.3% of the gross and Hong Kong takes 12.2%.
Income tax is only part of it, and the smaller part in Singapore
Most comparisons between countries stop at the income tax rate. That is the number governments publish and the number newspapers repeat, and on a payslip it is routinely the smaller of the two deductions.
Hong Kong, on HK$576,759: income tax HK$52,339 and compulsory contributions HK$18,000 — 9.1% and 3.1% of gross. The contributions are mandatory provident fund, employee contribution (HK$18,000).
Singapore, on $102,381: income tax $3,601 and compulsory contributions $19,200 — 3.5% and 18.8%. Made up of central provident fund, employee share, age 55 and below ($19,200).
The base the tax is charged on is not the same thing in the two countries either. Hong Kong taxes assessable income after deductions and Singapore taxes chargeable income — which is why comparing headline rates on gross salary gets the answer wrong before any arithmetic starts.
Cheaper in Singapore than Hong KongDearer in Singapore than Hong Kong
Each bar is how far apart Hong Kong and Singapore are on that component, and which way. Housing almost always runs several times wider than everything else — which is why a single blended index tells you very little.
Neither country hides its contributions inside the income tax figure, so the two lines above are directly comparable: in both, what is labelled income tax is income tax and what is labelled contributions is everything else compulsory.
This is the part that took the longest to get right on this site, and it was wrong here before: the country pages used to show income tax alone and call the remainder take-home. On a salary like this that overstated what you keep by $18,753 a year in the worse of the two.
What the tax buys is the other half, and this page cannot measure it
Everything above measures what leaves your pay. It says nothing about what comes back, and between two countries that is not a detail — it is the larger half of the question.
In one country the tax bill includes your healthcare, your children's university and a pension you will actually live on. In another it does not, and you buy those yourself out of the money the page just told you that you kept. A comparison that declares a winner on take-home alone is the same trick as comparing top tax rates, which is the thing this site exists to argue against.
We looked for a way to put that half into a comparable number and there is not one. No international dataset measures the value of what a tax system returns to a household. Saying so is more useful than a made-up index.
The one piece of this that exists as a comparable figure — out-of-pocket health spending per person — is not published for Hong Kong, so even that partial measure is unavailable for this pair. It is left blank rather than estimated.
And health is one line of several. Pensions, childcare, university fees, unemployment cover and the quality of what the money buys are all outside these figures — some of them larger than health. Read the numbers above as what you keep, not as who is better off.
To live the same in Singapore you would need $111,384
The question behind most of these searches is not which country is cheaper. It is "I have an offer — is it enough?"
Matching what $100,000 buys you in Hong Kong takes $111,384 of real income in Singapore, which is $114,037 at Singaporean prices. That is 11.4% more. Below it, the move costs you money however the offer is presented.
It is solved by inverting the whole calculation rather than scaling it. Brackets, contribution ceilings and deductions that do not move with pay all break the straight line, and they break it exactly at the salaries where people negotiate. A rule of thumb gets this wrong by thousands.
The dashed line is the salary you earn now. The solid line is what matches it in Singapore. If the relationship were a simple multiplier the two would be parallel — they are not, because brackets, the Social Security ceiling and a property tax that does not move with income all bend it.
The figure also moves with the salary, which is why the chart below is a line and not a number: Hong Kong and Singaporean systems are progressive to different degrees, so the gap between them is not a fixed percentage.
The answer changes with the salary, and sometimes it flips
Both systems are progressive, but not in the same way and not at the same points. Resolved at six levels of real income:
On $30,000 — Hong Kong by $4,503 a year. Hong Kong keeps $28,433 of it, Singapore $23,930; effective rates 5.2% and 20.2%.
On $50,000 — Hong Kong by $6,840 a year. Hong Kong keeps $46,304 of it, Singapore $39,464; effective rates 7.4% and 21.1%.
On $75,000 — Hong Kong by $8,988 a year. Hong Kong keeps $67,054 of it, Singapore $58,066; effective rates 10.6% and 22.6%.
On $100,000 — Hong Kong by $10,075 a year. Hong Kong keeps $87,804 of it, Singapore $77,729; effective rates 12.2% and 22.3%.
On $150,000 — Hong Kong by $7,782 a year. Hong Kong keeps $129,304 of it, Singapore $121,522; effective rates 13.8% and 19.0%.
On $250,000 — Hong Kong by $8,351 a year. Hong Kong keeps $212,304 of it, Singapore $203,953; effective rates 15.1% and 18.4%.
The direction holds across the whole range — Hong Kong at every level from $30,000 to $250,000 — but the size of the gap does not: it runs from $4,503 to $8,351.
Contribution ceilings are usually what bends these lines. Where a country caps its social contributions, the effective rate falls away above the cap; where it does not, it keeps climbing. That single design choice moves high salaries more than any headline rate does.
What is strange about each of these two systems
A bracket is a bracket everywhere. What separates two tax systems is the exception each one carries, and neither of these appears in a table of rates:
Hong Kong — top rate 17.0%, reached at HK$200,000, with HK$145,000 exempt at the bottom. Two separate calculations, and you pay whichever is lower — so above a published crossover, allowances stop mattering.
Singapore — top rate 24.0%, reached at $1,000,000, with $20,000 exempt at the bottom. Twelve gentle steps to a 24% top rate, and a long list of things Singapore does not tax at all.
Both relieve the bottom of the scale the same way, through an exempt band of income taxed at nothing, so the two scales are at least comparable in shape even where the rates differ.
The top rate is the figure that gets quoted and it is rarely the one that matters: what decides a normal salary is where the scale starts biting, how the relief at the bottom is given, and whether social contributions are capped. All three are above.
A raise is worth more in Singapore, whatever the averages say
The effective rates above are averages over the whole salary. They are not what you feel when you get a rise, and the two can point in opposite directions.
On the next $1,000 of real income at this level, Hong Kong takes 17.0% and leaves you $830; Singapore takes 11.5% and leaves you $885.
That is a gap of 5.5% on every extra unit earned — and it runs the opposite way to the average rates. A country can take less of your salary overall and more of your next raise, which is what makes averages a poor guide to a negotiation.
Marginal rates are where contribution ceilings, tapering allowances and surcharges show up. They are also what decides whether a promotion, a bonus or a second job is worth the trouble, and they are almost never in a comparison of headline rates.
Whether the contributions ever stop is the difference nobody looks at
Income tax scales are progressive almost everywhere. Social contributions are not: most countries stop charging them above a ceiling, a few never stop, and that single design choice moves high salaries more than any rate in a table.
Hong Kong: contributions take 3.1% of a $100,000 salary and 1.2% of a $250,000 one. They are capped — the share falls away as pay rises, so the Hong Kong system leans on income tax at the top.
Singapore: 18.8% at $100,000 and 7.5% at $250,000. Capped as well, on the same pattern.
Both behave the same way in this respect, so the comparison between them stays fairly stable as the salary grows — the gap changes in size but not in kind.
Total share of gross taken at the two levels: 12.2% and 15.1% in Hong Kong, 22.3% and 18.4% in Singapore.
These are not equally rich countries, and the price level says so
One more thing has to be said before any of the figures above are read as advice. Hong Kong and Singapore do not have the same salaries to offer.
On the World Bank's index of household prices, where the United States is 100, Hong Kong sits at 74 and Singapore at 78.3. That is what the conversion on this page corrects for: $100,000 of real income costs an employer HK$576,759 in one and $102,381 in the other.
Output per person, also in international dollars: $80,423 in Hong Kong and $163,354 in Singapore. The gap is large, and it matters for a practical reason: a salary of $100,000 in real terms is a far more ordinary job in one of these two than in the other. Comparing the tax on an identical real salary is the right comparison; assuming the salary is equally available is not.
Which is the limit of every figure on this page, stated once more: it prices a salary you already have an offer for. It does not tell you that the offer exists.
Among the 27 countries here, Hong Kong is 3rd and Singapore is 6th
Both resolved on the same $100,000 of real income, ranked by what is left to spend:
Thailand keeps the most, $90,352, and Italy the least, $60,321 — a spread of $30,031 on identical real pay.
Hong Kong sits at $87,804 and Singapore at $77,729. The two are near neighbours in that table, which is worth knowing: on take-home alone this is a close call, and the things this page cannot measure will decide it.
Sitting immediately around them: The Philippines at $77,798, Malaysia at $76,824, Switzerland at $76,477, India at $89,256. If the difference between Hong Kong and Singapore looks decisive, notice how many other countries fall inside the same span — take-home alone rarely separates two places as cleanly as a single pair suggests.
A ranking of what you keep is not a ranking of where to live, and the gap between those two statements is the whole of the previous section. How this is calculated, including what it refuses to claim.
Over 10 years: $100,749
At $10,075 a year, 10 years in Hong Kong rather than Singapore is worth $100,749 in today's purchasing power.
A move between countries is the expensive kind, and none of that is in the figure: visas, shipping, a deposit in a currency you do not yet earn, and in many cases a period of paying into two systems at once. There are also tax-residence rules that decide which country taxes you in the year you move, and they are not modelled here.
The line starts below zero because moving costs about $15,000 and lands entirely in year one. It takes until year 2 for the move to pay for itself. That is the figure a per-year comparison hides.
At three horizons: $30,225 over three years, $100,749 over 10, $302,248 over thirty.
The longer the horizon, the more the part this page cannot measure matters — a pension you accrue, healthcare you will need later, a child's education. A ten-year figure on take-home alone flatters whichever country asks for less now.
The other comparisons people run next
Every country here is resolved against every other on the same real income. The ones most often paired with these two:
Australia vs Hong Kong — Hong Kong by $13,879 a year.
Austria vs Hong Kong — Hong Kong by $22,558 a year.
Canada vs Hong Kong — Hong Kong by $15,368 a year.
Ethiopia vs Hong Kong — Hong Kong by $26,444 a year.
France vs Hong Kong — Hong Kong by $18,955 a year.
Germany vs Hong Kong — Hong Kong by $26,740 a year.
Hong Kong vs India — India by $1,452 a year.
Hong Kong vs Ireland — Hong Kong by $21,603 a year.
Hong Kong vs Italy — Hong Kong by $27,483 a year.
Hong Kong vs Jamaica — Hong Kong by $15,260 a year.
Or start from one country: every Hong Kong comparison and every Singapore comparison, each resolving all 26 on one page.
Where every number here comes from
The price level and the conversion between currencies:
World Bank, International Comparison Program — PPP conversion factor, household final consumption expenditure (LCU per international $), 2025 — read 2026-09-11. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PRVT.PP
World Bank — Price level ratio of PPP conversion factor to market exchange rate, 2025 (United States = 100) — read 2026-09-11. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP.03.CD
World Health Organization Global Health Expenditure Database, via World Bank — Out-of-pocket health expenditure per capita, PPP, 2023 — read 2026-09-11. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.OOPC.PP.CD
The Hong Kong figures:
Hong Kong income tax — from the authority that sets it, with the rates and thresholds on the Hong Kong calculator page.
Hong Kong contributions — Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority — Mandatory contributions for employees: 5% of relevant income from both employer and employee, with monthly minimum and maximum relevant income levels of HK$7,100 and HK$30,000, so the employee contribution is capped at HK$1,500 a month; an employee earning below the minimum makes no contribution while the employer still does. Read 2026-09-11. https://www.mpfa.org.hk/en/mpf-system/mandatory-contributions/employees
The Singaporean figures:
Singapore contributions — Central Provident Fund Board — CPF contribution rates from 1 January 2026: employee share of 20% for employees aged 55 and below, on an Ordinary Wage ceiling of S$8,000 a month and a total wage ceiling of S$102,000 a year. Read 2026-09-11. https://www.cpf.gov.sg/content/dam/web/employer/employer-obligations/documents/CPFcontributionratesfrom1Jan2026.pdf
Singapore contributions — IRAS — CPF Relief for employees: compulsory employee CPF contributions reduce assessable income; Earned Income Relief of S$1,000 applies automatically below age 55. Read 2026-09-11. https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income-tax/basics-of-individual-income-tax/tax-reliefs-rebates-and-deductions/tax-reliefs/central-provident-fund(cpf)-relief-for-employees
And what is still not modelled on either side, stated rather than left to be discovered:
— Hong Kong: Deductions beyond MPF are not modelled: self-education expenses, approved charitable donations, elderly residential care, home loan interest, domestic rent and voluntary health insurance all reduce assessable income.
— Singapore: CPF contribution rates step down with age from 55 onwards, and the figures here are those for an employee aged 55 or below.
— Singapore: A foreigner on a work pass does not contribute to the CPF at all, so their take-home on the same salary is materially higher than shown and their tax the same.
— Singapore: Reliefs beyond CPF and earned income — spouse and child relief, CPF cash top-ups, course fees — are not modelled, so the tax shown is an upper bound.
The price figures are the 2025 release and are not extrapolated to the current year.
Where to go next
Questions
- Is it better to earn in Hong Kong or Singapore?
- On what you keep, Hong Kong: $10,075 a year more in spending power on the same real income of $100,000. On whether you are better off, that is a different question — the two countries do not buy the same things with the tax they collect, and this page says what it can measure and what it cannot.
- How much do I need to earn in Singapore to match Hong Kong?
- $111,384 of real income, which is $114,037 at Singaporean prices — 11.4% more. It is solved by inverting the calculation, because brackets and contribution ceilings break any simple proportion.
- Why not just compare the tax rates?
- Because the income tax rate is routinely the smaller of the two deductions. On this pair, compulsory social contributions are HK$18,000 in Hong Kong and $19,200 in Singapore, on top of income tax of HK$52,339 and $3,601. A comparison of headline rates misses all of that, and in several countries it misses more than half of what comes off the payslip.
- Why international dollars instead of euros or dollars?
- Because an exchange rate measures what money is worth if you carry it abroad, not what it buys where you earn it. The conversion used here is the World Bank's purchasing power parity factor for household consumption, which prices a comparable basket in each country. $100,000 of real income is HK$576,759 in Hong Kong and $102,381 in Singapore — two very different numbers that buy the same thing.
- Does this include what the tax pays for?
- No, and that is the honest limit of the comparison. In one country the tax includes healthcare, education and a pension; in another the household buys those itself. No international dataset measures the value of what a tax system returns, so this page does not pretend to. For this pair not even the out-of-pocket health figure is published on both sides, so it is left blank rather than estimated.
- If I move from Hong Kong to Singapore, which country taxes me that year?
- That is decided by tax residence rules, and they are not modelled here. Most countries tax you as a resident from the day you arrive or from a day-count threshold, and a double tax treaty decides which one wins where both claim you. In the year of a move it is common to file in both. The figures on this page describe a full year settled in one country, not the year you cross between them — and the difference in that one year can be larger than the annual gap shown above.
- Do these figures assume a single person?
- Yes: one earner, no children, the main regional scale where a country has more than one, and no deductions beyond the standard ones. Hong Kong and Singapore both treat households differently from single filers, and in some countries — joint assessment, family quotients, child credits — the difference is large enough to reverse the comparison. The single-filer case is the one that can be stated identically in all 27 countries, which is why it is the one used.
- Which country takes the largest share of a salary?
- Of the 27 here, Italy leaves the least of a $100,000 real income — $60,321 — and Thailand the most, $90,352. Hong Kong leaves $87,804 and Singapore $77,729.