Akron to Norton
Ohio municipal income tax, Chapter 718 framework · credit set by Akron ordinance · tax year 2026
Work city takes
2%
Norton, on income earned there
Home city charges
2.5%
Akron, residents
Credit back
$1,200
a share of the work tax
Cost of the commute
$0
a year, above working at home
What it costs you
no extra local taxAkron credits only part of what Norton takes, so the remainder is taxed twice. Solid is what you pay; the faded part of the Akron bar is the credit it hands back. Municipal income tax only — state, federal and payroll tax apply on top, and an Ohio school district income tax may too.
What this commute actually costs
- Here is the good news. Working in Norton costs you nothing extra in local tax. Akron charges residents about 2.5%, and it credits back every dollar Norton collects from you. Either way your bill is $1,500 a year. What changes is which city keeps the money, not how much of it you hand over.
- Worth watching rather than worrying about. The credit from Akron runs out once Norton takes more than the ceiling allows, and today there is $300 a year of slack. A rate rise in Norton would eat into that first, and into your pay after.
- Norton shows just one commuting route in this data, and it starts in Akron. Roughly 582 people make the trip. That is not the whole picture of who works there, only the part large enough to be published.
- This pairing is neutral to the worker. Norton withholds about 2% on income earned there, and Akron, which levies about 2.5% on residents, credits that payment in full without reaching its own ceiling. Liability at the reference salary is therefore $1,500 — precisely what the same earnings would attract with no commute at all. What the arrangement alters is the division of revenue between Norton and Akron, not the sum leaving the worker's pay.
- The margin is worth knowing, because it is not large. Akron credits tax paid to Norton only up to a ceiling set as a share of income, and Norton's levy currently sits below it with $300 of annual room to spare at the reference salary. Were Norton to raise its rate past that point, the excess would cease to be credited and would fall on the worker rather than on either treasury.
- Within this dataset Norton draws a single recorded commuting flow of qualifying size — the one from Akron, carrying roughly 582 workers. That reflects the reporting floor rather than the labor market: smaller flows certainly exist and fall below the threshold at which Census origin-destination statistics are published. No ranking against sibling routes is therefore available for this workplace.
Where the money goes
A $75,000 salary
- Federal income tax$7,670
- Social Security and Medicare$5,738
- State income tax$1,346
- Yours$60,246
| Federal income tax10.23% | $7,670 |
|---|---|
| Social Security and Medicare7.65% | $5,738 |
| State income tax1.79% | $1,346 |
| Yours80.33% | $60,246 |
The arithmetic, step by step
| Norton takes, on income earned there | $1,200 |
|---|---|
| Akron charges residents | $1,500 |
| Less the credit Akron gives back | $1,200 |
| Total local tax | $1,500 |
| If you also lived in Norton | $1,500 |
| Difference | $0 |
On a reference salary of $60,000 a year. Both rates and the credit ceiling are shares of income, so every figure scales with your own pay.
What this page does not cover
- Two guesses about this are wrong, and they miss in opposite directions. The rates are not added together. Nor do you simply pay whichever is higher, which is how it works across the border in Pennsylvania. Norton taxes what you earn there, Akron taxes everything you earn, and then Akron decides how much of the first bill to give back.
- One thing to keep in mind. Ohio does not require Akron to give any credit at all. That choice sits with the city, and cities revisit it. A vote in Akron could change what this commute to Norton costs you, with no change in the law itself.
- Ohio has a second local tax that is not on this page. Some school districts levy their own income tax. It depends on where you live, not on your job in Norton, and the credit from Akron does not touch it. If your district charges one, add it to everything here.
- One tax is on this page and it is the city one. State tax, federal tax and Social Security all still come out of your pay. None of them change when you cross the line between Akron and Norton. That is exactly why they are left out.
- Every dollar amount here uses a salary of sixty thousand a year. It is a benchmark, not a guess at what people in Akron earn, because nobody publishes average pay for single municipalities. Scale the figures to your own salary. The rates and the credit work the same way at any income, so the Norton conclusion holds.
- Two misreadings bracket the correct answer and both are common. Ohio does not simply add the two rates together, which would overstate the charge; nor does it apply only the higher of them, which is Pennsylvania's rule and would understate it wherever the credit is partial. Norton taxes what is earned within its boundaries, Akron taxes its residents on everything, and Akron then credits some, all or none of what Norton collected. The credit is the entire mechanism, and it is set by Akron rather than by the state.
- The credit rule modeled here is Akron's own, adopted by ordinance and amendable by Akron alone. Ohio's uniform framework governs definitions, filing and withholding; it does not compel any municipality to credit tax paid to another. A council vote in Akron can therefore change every figure on this page without anything altering in Norton or in state law, which is a materially different exposure from a rate set by statute.
- Ohio school district income tax is a separate levy from municipal income tax and is excluded from these figures. It is imposed by school district of residence rather than by municipality, it is unaffected by employment in Norton, and no municipal credit applies to it. A resident of Akron whose school district levies one owes it in addition to everything shown here, which is why the totals on this page are a municipal position rather than a complete local one.
- Only municipal income tax is modeled. Ohio's state income tax, federal income tax and payroll taxes all apply in addition and are invariant to the boundary between Akron and Norton, which is precisely why they are excluded: isolating the layer that responds to the commute is the point of the comparison. A complete tax position requires adding them; a comparison of the two locations does not.
- Dollar figures are computed against a stated reference salary of sixty thousand rather than a municipal wage average, which no published source provides for Ohio municipalities. Both rates and the credit ceiling are proportional to income, so every figure scales linearly: the Akron to Norton differential doubles at twice the salary and halves at half of it, and the rate relationship holds at every level. The one caveat is that whether the ceiling binds at all is itself scale-invariant here, because it too is expressed as a share of income rather than as a fixed dollar cap.
Questions people ask
Do I pay local tax twice — once where I work and once where I live?
You are taxed by both, then given credit for one. Working in Norton costs about 2%; living in Akron costs about 2.5%, reduced by whatever share of the work tax the home city recognizes.
Does working in a different town cost me anything?
Not a cent on this one. The crossing changes where the money is sent, not how much of it leaves, so your total matches a stay-at-home commute.
Is this commute common enough for the numbers to mean anything?
582 workers make this journey — enough to be published, but not a major corridor. The tax rules do not depend on how many people travel a route, so the figures hold regardless; the count only tells you how typical this pairing is.
How does a resident credit allocate liability between two municipalities?
Both jurisdictions assert a claim: Norton on the basis of work location at about 2%, Akron on residence at about 2.5%. The residence municipality grants a credit for tax paid to the work municipality, commonly capped as a share of income. Net liability is the residence tax less that credit, floored at zero, plus the work tax.
Why is the marginal cost of this crossing zero?
Marginal liability from working outside the residence jurisdiction is zero on this route. The crossing alters the distribution of revenue between jurisdictions but not the employee's total. ⚠️ This is route-specific and does not generalise to other pairs in the same dataset.
What is the measurement basis for a route of this size?
Route volume is 582 workers per Census LODES, above the publication floor but below the dataset's upper quartile. Liability is determined by jurisdictional rates and residence rules alone; commuter volume has no bearing on it and is reported only as context.