Italy vs New Zealand
$100,000 of real income is €64,482 in Italy and $152,909 in New Zealand. After income tax and every compulsory contribution, New Zealand leaves you $11,549 a year more to spend than Italy — and what each tax buys back is the half of the question no dataset prices.
New Zealand leaves $11,549 a year more than Italy on the same real income, after income tax and compulsory social contributions.
New Zealand leaves you $11,549 a year more to spend than Italy
The figures on this page are in international dollars, and that choice is the whole reason the comparison means anything. Converting EUR to NZD 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 €64,482 in Italy and $152,909 in New Zealand. 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 — Italian take-home is €38,897 and New Zealand take-home is $109,895. Back in the common unit that is $60,321 against $71,870, a difference of $11,549 a year and $115,486 over 10 years.
Grey columns are what a year of Italy and a year of New Zealand 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: €3,241 in Italy and $9,158 in New Zealand — $5,027 and $5,989 once both are put in the same unit. The $962 a month between them is the figure worth carrying into a negotiation.
Italy takes 39.7% of the gross and New Zealand takes 28.1%.
Income tax is only part of it, and the smaller part in New Zealand
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.
Italy, on €64,482: income tax €17,344 and compulsory contributions €8,242 — 26.9% and 12.8% of gross. The contributions are ivs pension contribution, employee share (€6,009), addizionale regionale all’irpef, lazio (€1,707), addizionale comunale all’irpef, roma capitale (€526).
New Zealand, on $152,909: income tax $40,337 and compulsory contributions $2,676 — 26.4% and 1.8%. Made up of acc earners’ levy ($2,676).
The base the tax is charged on is not the same thing in the two countries either. Italy taxes reddito imponibile and New Zealand taxes taxable income — which is why comparing headline rates on gross salary gets the answer wrong before any arithmetic starts.
Cheaper in New Zealand than ItalyDearer in New Zealand than Italy
Each bar is how far apart Italy and New Zealand 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 $12,782 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.
One piece of it does exist as a figure, and here it is. Out-of-pocket health spending per person, 2023: $1,114 in Italy against $707 in New Zealand. That is what households pay directly, after whatever the public system covers — so it is a partial, honest measure of what the tax is not buying. A household in Italy pays $407 a year more directly.
The same figure as a share tells you more than the amount does. Italy spends $4,993 per person on health altogether and 22.3% of it comes straight out of households; New Zealand spends $5,576 with 12.7% out of pocket. That is a real difference in how the same service is paid for — and it moves in the direction of Italy collecting less in tax and leaving more to be paid at the point of use.
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 New Zealand you would need $82,301
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 Italy takes $82,301 of real income in New Zealand, which is $125,845 at New Zealand prices. That is 17.7% less than you earn now — you could take a cut of $17,699 and be no worse off.
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 New Zealand. 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: Italian and New Zealand 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 — New Zealand by $299 a year. Italy keeps $24,640 of it, New Zealand $24,939; effective rates 17.9% and 16.9%.
On $50,000 — New Zealand by $3,107 a year. Italy keeps $36,106 of it, New Zealand $39,213; effective rates 27.8% and 21.6%.
On $75,000 — New Zealand by $7,273 a year. Italy keeps $48,285 of it, New Zealand $55,557; effective rates 35.6% and 25.9%.
On $100,000 — New Zealand by $11,549 a year. Italy keeps $60,321 of it, New Zealand $71,870; effective rates 39.7% and 28.1%.
On $150,000 — New Zealand by $19,373 a year. Italy keeps $84,018 of it, New Zealand $103,390; effective rates 44.0% and 31.1%.
On $250,000 — New Zealand by $29,735 a year. Italy keeps $134,655 of it, New Zealand $164,390; effective rates 46.1% and 34.2%.
The direction holds across the whole range — New Zealand at every level from $30,000 to $250,000 — but the size of the gap does not: it runs from $299 to $29,735.
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:
Italy — top rate 43.0%, reached at €50,000, and no exempt band: relief comes as a credit against the tax. Three rates, and a marginal rate that is almost never one of them because the employment credit shrinks as income rises.
New Zealand — top rate 39.0%, reached at $180,000, and no exempt band: relief comes as nothing at all. No tax-free threshold, no social insurance on the payslip as such, and no general capital gains tax.
They also relieve the bottom of the scale in different ways — Italy through a credit subtracted from the tax itself and New Zealand through no general relief at all. That sounds technical and it is not: a credit is worth the same to everyone, while an exempt band is worth more to whoever has the higher marginal rate. On a modest salary the two designs give visibly different answers.
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 New Zealand, 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, Italy takes 52.6% and leaves you $474; New Zealand takes 34.8% and leaves you $653.
That is a gap of 17.9% on every extra unit earned — and it runs the same way as the average rates.
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.
Italy: contributions take 12.8% of a $100,000 salary and 11.2% of a $250,000 one. They are capped — the share falls away as pay rises, so the Italian system leans on income tax at the top.
New Zealand: 1.8% at $100,000 and 0.7% 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: 39.7% and 46.1% in Italy, 28.1% and 34.2% in New Zealand.
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. Italy and New Zealand do not have the same salaries to offer.
On the World Bank's index of household prices, where the United States is 100, Italy sits at 72.9 and New Zealand at 89.8. That is what the conversion on this page corrects for: $100,000 of real income costs an employer €64,482 in one and $152,909 in the other.
Output per person, also in international dollars: $62,803 in Italy and $57,350 in New Zealand. The two are broadly comparable, so a salary at this level means something similar in each.
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, Italy is 27th and New Zealand is 16th
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.
Italy sits at $60,321 and New Zealand at $71,870. They are 11 places apart.
Sitting immediately around them: Japan at $72,399, Canada at $72,437, Jamaica at $72,545, Germany at $61,065. If the difference between Italy and New Zealand 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: $115,486
At $11,549 a year, 10 years in New Zealand rather than Italy is worth $115,486 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: $34,646 over three years, $115,486 over 10, $346,458 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 Italy — Australia by $13,604 a year.
Austria vs Italy — Austria by $4,925 a year.
Canada vs Italy — Canada by $12,115 a year.
Ethiopia vs Italy — Ethiopia by $1,040 a year.
France vs Italy — France by $8,528 a year.
Germany vs Italy — Germany by $744 a year.
Hong Kong vs Italy — Hong Kong by $27,483 a year.
India vs Italy — India by $28,935 a year.
Ireland vs Italy — Ireland by $5,880 a year.
Italy vs Jamaica — Jamaica by $12,223 a year.
Or start from one country: every Italy comparison and every New Zealand 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 Italian figures:
Italy income tax — from the authority that sets it, with the rates and thresholds on the Italy calculator page.
Italy contributions — INPS, circolare 30 gennaio 2026 n. 6 — valori retributivi e contributivi dal 1° gennaio 2026: the annual contribution ceiling is €122,295 and an additional 1% contribution applies to pay above €56,224 a year (€4,685 a month), on top of the ordinary employee IVS rate of 9.19% for employees of industrial firms. Read 2026-09-11. https://www.inps.it/it/it/inps-comunica/notizie/dettaglio-news-page.news.2026.02.lavoratori-dipendenti-limite-minimo-di-retribuzione-giornaliera-2026.html
Italy contributions — Regione Lazio — Addizionale regionale all’IRPEF 2026 (L.R. 20/2025): 1.73% on taxable income up to €15,000 and 3.33% above it, with a €60 deduction for income between €28,001 and €30,000. Read 2026-09-11. https://www.regione.lazio.it/sites/default/files/2026-01/Addizionale-regionale-2026.pdf
Italy contributions — Roma Capitale — Addizionale comunale all’IRPEF: the rate has been 0.9% since 2011, the maximum the capital is permitted, against a 0.8% ceiling for other municipalities. Read 2026-09-11. https://www.comune.roma.it/web/it/scheda-servizi.page?contentId=INF41403
The New Zealand figures:
New Zealand contributions — Inland Revenue — ACC earners’ levy rates: 1.75% ($1.75 per $100 of liable earnings) for the year ending 31 March 2027, on maximum liable earnings of $156,641, giving a maximum levy of $2,741.22; it is deducted through PAYE alongside income tax. Read 2026-09-11. https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/acc-clients-and-carers/acc-earners-levy-rates
And what is still not modelled on either side, stated rather than left to be discovered:
— Italy: The regional and municipal surcharges are those of Lazio and Roma Capitale. Every Italian region and comune sets its own, and the page says which are used.
— Italy: The €60 Lazio deduction for taxable income between €28,001 and €30,000, and the Roma Capitale exemption band for low incomes, are not applied.
— Italy: The surcharges are settled in the year after the income is earned, so in a first year of work they are not yet withheld.
— Italy: Article 11 of the TUIR is repealed from 1 January 2027, and the rates for 2027 onwards are set by the new consolidated text.
— New Zealand: KiwiSaver contributions are deducted from most New Zealand payslips at 3% or more, but an employee may opt out, so they are not modelled as a mandatory charge.
— New Zealand: Student loan repayments are compulsory above an income threshold and deducted through the pay cycle like a second tax. They are not modelled.
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 Italy or New Zealand?
- On what you keep, New Zealand: $11,549 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 New Zealand to match Italy?
- $82,301 of real income, which is $125,845 at New Zealand prices — 17.7% less than you earn now. 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 €8,242 in Italy and $2,676 in New Zealand, on top of income tax of €17,344 and $40,337. 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 €64,482 in Italy and $152,909 in New Zealand — 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. The one piece that is measured is out-of-pocket health spending per person: $1,114 in Italy against $707 in New Zealand.
- If I move from Italy to New Zealand, 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. Italy and New Zealand 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. Italy leaves $60,321 and New Zealand $71,870.