Denmark Tracks Migrants’ Fiscal Contributions and Costs

At the other end of the scale, immigrants from the UK recorded around plus DKr114,000 ($17,800) per person per year. Those from France recorded plus DKr113,600 ($17,800), those from the US plus DKr110,400 ($17,300) and those from the Netherlands plus DKr109,500 ($17,100). Indians, Italians, Swedes, Spaniards, Chinese, Ukrainians, Germans and Poles also recorded positive figures.

Mathematically, the claim made on X can indeed be derived from the chart. Of the 36 countries listed, 12 are in negative territory. Nine belong to Denmark’s official Middle Eastern, North African, Pakistani and Turkish (MENAPT) category in the chart: Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran.

If Bosnia-Herzegovina is also counted among Muslim-majority countries, this produces the 10 Muslim countries cited in the post. The other two countries in negative territory are Eritrea and Yugoslavia. The latter no longer exists but is still listed separately for statistical purposes. The remaining 24 countries are all in positive territory.

Striking Patterns

The phrase "all Muslim countries cost money" does not, of course, come from the Danish Finance Ministry. The ministry categorizes immigrants by origin, not by religion. The religious classification was imposed on the official data by the authors of the viral post. Nevertheless, the interpretation reflects a real pattern in the figures.

You might be interested Meloni and Frederiksen Link Migration to Europe's Christian Heritage

When countries of origin are grouped by region, the pattern is similarly pronounced. According to the calculations, immigrants and descendants from MENAPT countries generated net government expenditure of around DKr24bn ($3.8bn) in 2019.

Immigrants and descendants from Western countries, by contrast, made a positive net contribution of around DKr11bn ($1.7bn). Other non-Western countries outside MENAPT recorded a negative net contribution of around DKr3bn ($470m). Overall, immigrants and their descendants generated net costs of around DKr16bn ($2.5bn).

The statistics, however, are considerably more comprehensive than a simple comparison of welfare benefits and income tax. The Finance Ministry attempted to allocate all public revenue and expenditure to individual residents. This includes directly attributable taxes and transfer payments as well as spending on health and education, along with collectively funded services such as roads, public transportation and defense.

The Ministry’s Explanations

The ministry identifies the reason for immigration as an important factor in explaining the differences. Labor migrants are far more likely to make a positive fiscal contribution than refugees or certain groups arriving through family reunification.

The ministry therefore used a model to examine what would happen if MENAPT immigrants had the same distribution of reasons for residence as Western immigrants. Their average net contribution would then be around DKr60,000 ($9,400) higher per person, although it would still remain negative on average.

https://twitter.com/geiger_capital/status/2088320585696678388

Age also plays a considerable role. Children, young people and older people are typically net recipients of public services regardless of their origin, while people of working age are more likely to make positive contributions. The statistics are therefore a snapshot of public finances in a particular year. They are not evidence that religion itself causes the observed differences. Such an assumption would go beyond what the statistics show.

Further Analyses in Other Countries

In Denmark, the costs and benefits of migration are regularly examined by various organizations. In 2025, for example, the employers’ association Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening published an estimate based on the Finance Ministry’s methodology. It found that international workers, including accompanying family members, make an annual positive contribution to public finances of around DKr26.7bn ($4.2bn).

Similar studies exist in the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Germany and the UK. They are comparable in that they likewise weigh taxes and contributions paid by immigrants against government spending on transfers and public services. They repeatedly show that labor migration and immigration from European or Western countries tend to produce more favorable fiscal outcomes than refugee, family or other forms of migration from non-EU countries.

You might be interested Denmark’s Social Democrats Move to Ban the Islamic Call to Prayer

Detailed Analysis

The categories and calculation methods used, however, are only partly comparable. Germany distinguishes primarily between EU and non-EU foreigners, Norway uses broad regions of origin, Belgium distinguishes between EU and non-EU origin, and the UK increasingly categorizes migrants by visa and immigration route.

The Dutch study comes closest to the Danish analysis because it differentiates in detail by origin and reason for immigration. It is not, however, an official government statistic and in some cases calculates lifetime effects.

According to the authors, the Dutch study was prompted primarily by the fact that, despite the political significance of the sharp increase in immigration, its fiscal impact had barely been examined systematically since a government study published in 2003.

Denmark therefore occupies a special position. The Finance Ministry officially publishes the annual net fiscal contribution for 36 individual countries of origin. The central finding of the Danish data remains that there are striking fiscal differences between groups of different origins. In the official calculation, MENAPT immigrants and their descendants accounted for almost all the net costs of non-Western migration, while Western immigration reduced the overall burden on the state budget.

Unlike many other countries, Denmark lays its cards on the table, publishing figures that other states do not disclose in the same way.