Malta vs Sweden
$100,000 of real income is €61,036 in Malta and kr 888,900 in Sweden. After income tax and every compulsory contribution, Malta leaves you $13,548 a year more to spend than Sweden — and what each tax buys back is the half of the question no dataset prices.
Malta leaves $13,548 a year more than Sweden on the same real income, after income tax and compulsory social contributions.
Malta leaves you $13,548 a year more to spend than Sweden
The figures on this page are in international dollars, and that choice is the whole reason the comparison means anything. Converting EUR to SEK 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 €61,036 in Malta and kr 888,900 in Sweden. 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 — Maltese take-home is €46,165 and Swedish take-home is kr 551,894. Back in the common unit that is $75,636 against $62,087, a difference of $13,548 a year and $135,484 over 10 years.
Grey columns are what a year of Malta and a year of Sweden 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: €3,847 in Malta and kr 45,991 in Sweden — $6,303 and $5,174 once both are put in the same unit. The $1,129 a month between them is the figure worth carrying into a negotiation.
Sweden takes 37.9% of the gross and Malta takes 24.4%.
Income tax is only part of it, and the smaller part in Sweden
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.
Malta, on €61,036: income tax €11,963 and compulsory contributions €2,908 — 19.6% and 4.8% of gross. The contributions are social security contribution, class 1, born 1962 or later (€2,908).
Sweden, on kr 888,900: income tax kr 337,006 and compulsory contributions kr 0 — 37.9% and 0.0%. Collected inside the income tax calculation rather than beside it.
The base the tax is charged on is not the same thing in the two countries either. Malta taxes chargeable income and Sweden taxes gross salary.
Cheaper in Sweden than MaltaDearer in Sweden than Malta
Each bar is how far apart Malta and Sweden 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.
A word on Sweden, where the contributions line looks empty and is not: that country collects social insurance inside the same calculation as the income tax, and publishes it that way, so it is already inside the first figure rather than missing from the second. A zero there would be a reporting choice, not a country where nothing is deducted — and telling the two apart is exactly what makes these comparisons hard to do from published tables.
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 $4,765 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: $1,765 in Malta against $1,040 in Sweden. 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 Malta pays $725 a year more directly.
The same figure as a share tells you more than the amount does. Malta spends $5,706 per person on health altogether and 30.9% of it comes straight out of households; Sweden spends $7,770 with 13.4% out of pocket. That is a real difference in how the same service is paid for — and it moves in the direction of Malta 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 Sweden you would need $128,451
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 Malta takes $128,451 of real income in Sweden, which is kr 1,141,802 at Swedish prices. That is 28.5% 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 Sweden. 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: Maltese and Swedish 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 — Malta by $4,784 a year. Malta keeps $25,070 of it, Sweden $20,286; effective rates 16.4% and 32.4%.
On $50,000 — Malta by $4,495 a year. Malta keeps $38,305 of it, Sweden $33,810; effective rates 23.4% and 32.4%.
On $75,000 — Malta by $6,873 a year. Malta keeps $57,055 of it, Sweden $50,182; effective rates 23.9% and 33.1%.
On $100,000 — Malta by $13,548 a year. Malta keeps $75,636 of it, Sweden $62,087; effective rates 24.4% and 37.9%.
On $150,000 — Malta by $22,238 a year. Malta keeps $108,136 of it, Sweden $85,897; effective rates 27.9% and 42.7%.
On $250,000 — Malta by $39,618 a year. Malta keeps $173,136 of it, Sweden $133,517; effective rates 30.7% and 46.6%.
The direction holds across the whole range — Malta at every level from $30,000 to $250,000 — but the size of the gap does not: it runs from $4,784 to $39,618.
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:
Malta — top rate 35.0%, reached at €60,000, with €12,000 exempt at the bottom. Seven separate computations rather than one scale, and a five-euro discontinuity written into the statute itself.
Sweden — top rate 20.0%, reached at kr 643,000, and no exempt band: relief comes as nothing at all. Mostly flat and mostly municipal: the state layer is 20% and starts so high that most Swedes never reach it.
They also relieve the bottom of the scale in different ways — Malta through an exempt band of income taxed at nothing and Sweden 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 Malta, 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, Malta takes 35.0% and leaves you $650; Sweden takes 52.4% and leaves you $476.
That is a gap of 17.4% 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.
Malta: contributions take 4.8% of a $100,000 salary and 1.9% of a $250,000 one. They are capped — the share falls away as pay rises, so the Maltese system leans on income tax at the top.
Sweden: 0.0% at $100,000 and 0.0% at $250,000. Uncapped, which is the less common design and the one that bites hardest on high pay.
The two systems are built differently here, and that is most of why the answer at $250,000 is not the answer at $50,000. One country lets the burden fall away on high pay and the other does not.
Total share of gross taken at the two levels: 24.4% and 30.7% in Malta, 37.9% and 46.6% in Sweden.
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. Malta and Sweden do not have the same salaries to offer.
On the World Bank's index of household prices, where the United States is 100, Malta sits at 69 and Sweden at 90.5. That is what the conversion on this page corrects for: $100,000 of real income costs an employer €61,036 in one and kr 888,900 in the other.
Output per person, also in international dollars: $72,210 in Malta and $72,529 in Sweden. 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, Malta is 9th and Sweden is 24th
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.
Malta sits at $75,636 and Sweden at $62,087. They are 15 places apart.
Sitting immediately around them: Ethiopia at $61,361, Switzerland at $76,477, Germany at $61,065, Malaysia at $76,824. If the difference between Malta and Sweden 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: $135,484
At $13,548 a year, 10 years in Malta rather than Sweden is worth $135,484 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: $40,645 over three years, $135,484 over 10, $406,452 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 Malta — Malta by $1,711 a year.
Austria vs Malta — Malta by $10,389 a year.
Canada vs Malta — Malta by $3,199 a year.
Ethiopia vs Malta — Malta by $14,275 a year.
France vs Malta — Malta by $6,786 a year.
Germany vs Malta — Malta by $14,571 a year.
Hong Kong vs Malta — Hong Kong by $12,169 a year.
India vs Malta — India by $13,620 a year.
Ireland vs Malta — Malta by $9,435 a year.
Italy vs Malta — Malta by $15,314 a year.
Or start from one country: every Malta comparison and every Sweden 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 Maltese figures:
Malta income tax — from the authority that sets it, with the rates and thresholds on the Malta calculator page.
Malta contributions — Department of Social Security — Social Security Contributions (Class 1) 2026, employed persons born from 1 January 1962 onwards: a flat €22.94 a week on a basic weekly wage up to €229.44, 10% between €229.45 and €559.30, and a flat €55.93 a week at €559.31 and above. Read 2026-09-11. https://socialsecurity.gov.mt/en/information-and-applications-for-benefits-and-services/social-security-contributions/social-security-contributions-class-1-2026/
The Swedish figures:
Sweden contributions — Skatteverket — the allmän pensionsavgift of 7% of earned income is offset in full by a tax reduction of the same amount, so it does not change what an employee pays; municipal and state income tax are already included in this site’s Swedish engine. Read 2026-09-11. https://www.skatteverket.se/privat/skatter/arbeteochinkomst/skattetabeller.4.7459477810df5bccdd4800014723.html
And what is still not modelled on either side, stated rather than left to be discovered:
— Malta: Employees born up to 31 December 1961 reach the flat top rate at a lower wage, €490.39 a week, and pay €49.04 rather than €55.93.
— Malta: The Maternity Leave Fund contribution is paid by the employer only and does not appear here.
— Malta: A contribution year in Malta is 52 or 53 weeks depending on the calendar. Fifty-two are used here.
— Sweden: The figures use the national average municipal tax rate. Municipal rates vary by several points across Sweden and the municipality is chosen on the page itself.
— Sweden: Kyrkoavgift, the church fee for members of a religious community, and begravningsavgift, the burial fee everyone pays, are charged alongside municipal tax and are not included.
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 Malta or Sweden?
- On what you keep, Malta: $13,548 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 Sweden to match Malta?
- $128,451 of real income, which is kr 1,141,802 at Swedish prices — 28.5% 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 €2,908 in Malta and kr 0 in Sweden, on top of income tax of €11,963 and kr 337,006. 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 €61,036 in Malta and kr 888,900 in Sweden — 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: $1,765 in Malta against $1,040 in Sweden.
- If I move from Malta to Sweden, 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. Malta and Sweden 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. Malta leaves $75,636 and Sweden $62,087.