Eswatini vs Latvia: Taxes on goods and services (current LCU), gaps filled
Taxes on goods and services (current LCU), gaps filled over time
- Eswatini
- Latvia
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 5.66 billion current LCU against 4.64 billion current LCU in Eswatini, a difference of 1.02 billion current LCU.
That makes Latvia's figure about 1.2 times Eswatini's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 22 shared years of data; in 2000 it was Latvia ahead.
Eswatini ranks 129th and Latvia ranks 126th of 157 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Eswatini averaged higher in 1 and Latvia in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Eswatini | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 177.52 million current LCU | 1.54 billion current LCU | 1.36 billion current LCU | Latvia |
| 2010s | 2.52 billion current LCU | 3.15 billion current LCU | 626.61 million current LCU | Latvia |
| 2020s | 4.56 billion current LCU | 4.29 billion current LCU | 264.44 million current LCU | Eswatini |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher taxes on goods and services (current lcu), gaps filled, Eswatini or Latvia?
- Latvia, at 5.66 billion current LCU against 4.64 billion current LCU in Eswatini as of 2024.
- What is the difference in taxes on goods and services (current lcu), gaps filled between Eswatini and Latvia?
- 1.02 billion current LCU, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Latvia?
- 22 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2021.
- How do Eswatini and Latvia rank globally for taxes on goods and services (current lcu), gaps filled?
- Eswatini ranks 129th and Latvia ranks 126th of 157 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Taxes on goods and services (current LCU), gaps filled. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Taxes on goods and services (current LCU) with 50 missing years estimated by linear interpolation between the nearest real observations. Only gaps of 4 years or fewer are filled, and never beyond the first or last actual measurement — these are filled holes, not forecasts.