Brunswick to Akron
Ohio municipal income tax, Chapter 718 framework · credit set by Brunswick ordinance · tax year 2026
Work city takes
2.5%
Akron, on income earned there
Home city charges
2%
Brunswick, residents
Credit back
$600
capped by the ceiling
Cost of the commute
$900
a year, above working at home
What it costs you
ceiling bindsBrunswick's credit stops at its ceiling, so the rest of its own tax still applies. Solid is what you pay; the faded part of the Brunswick 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
- Brunswick does credit you for the tax Akron takes. It just stops early. The credit cannot pass about 1% of your income, and Akron charges more than that, so it runs out before the bill does. Working there costs $900 a year more than working at home would. All in, local tax is $2,100.
- Akron pulls workers in from 19 different places, and this route from Brunswick ranks 19 of them by size. About 546 people travel it. Being busier does not make it cheaper. The rate you pay depends on your home city, not on how crowded your road is.
- The credit here is real but bounded. Brunswick allows residents about 100% of tax paid to another municipality, subject to a ceiling of about 1% of income, and on this pairing it is the ceiling rather than the share that binds. Akron withholds $1,500 at about 2.5%; Brunswick returns $600 of that and collects the remainder of its own about 2% resident levy. The workplace accordingly costs $900 above the home-only position, against a total of $2,100.
- Akron is a major regional workplace, drawing recorded flows from 19 separate origins in this dataset. The route from Brunswick ranks 19 among them by worker count, at roughly 546. Rank is not a proxy for tax outcome: every origin faces the same Akron rate, and what differs between them is the home municipality's credit, so a smaller route can carry a considerably worse result than a larger one.
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
| Akron takes, on income earned there | $1,500 |
|---|---|
| Brunswick charges residents | $1,200 |
| Less the credit Brunswick gives back | $600 |
| Total local tax | $2,100 |
| If you also lived in Akron | $1,200 |
| Difference | $900 |
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. Akron taxes what you earn there, Brunswick taxes everything you earn, and then Brunswick decides how much of the first bill to give back.
- One thing to keep in mind. Ohio does not require Brunswick to give any credit at all. That choice sits with the city, and cities revisit it. A vote in Brunswick could change what this commute to Akron 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 Akron, and the credit from Brunswick does not touch it. If your district charges one, add it to everything here.
- These figures are the local layer alone. Whatever Brunswick and Akron take sits on top of state, federal and payroll tax. Those three are the same wherever in Ohio you work, so putting them in would bury the difference this page is about.
- The dollar figures rest on one assumed salary, sixty thousand. Double your pay and they double. Halve it and they halve. What stays put is the relationship between what Akron charges and what Brunswick gives back, which is the part worth carrying away.
- 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. Akron taxes what is earned within its boundaries, Brunswick taxes its residents on everything, and Brunswick then credits some, all or none of what Akron collected. The credit is the entire mechanism, and it is set by Brunswick rather than by the state.
- The credit rule modeled here is Brunswick's own, adopted by ordinance and amendable by Brunswick 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 Brunswick can therefore change every figure on this page without anything altering in Akron 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 Akron, and no municipal credit applies to it. A resident of Brunswick 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 Brunswick and Akron, 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 Brunswick to Akron 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 Akron costs about 2.5%; living in Brunswick costs about 2%, reduced by whatever share of the work tax the home city recognizes.
What does crossing this boundary actually cost me?
$900 a year more than if you worked where you live. It is not a commuting charge and it buys you nothing — it is what falls out of two jurisdictions both having a claim and only one of them yielding.
Is this commute common enough for the numbers to mean anything?
It is a smaller route: 546 workers. That affects how representative it is, not whether the tax arithmetic applies — the rules are the same on a quiet road as a busy one.
How does a resident credit allocate liability between two municipalities?
Both jurisdictions assert a claim: Akron on the basis of work location at about 2.5%, Brunswick on residence at about 2%. 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.
What is the marginal local tax cost of this commute?
Marginal annual liability attributable to working outside the residence jurisdiction is $900 at the reference salary. This is a tax cost rather than a commuting expense and is not deductible as one. It scales with income and with the rate differential, not with distance traveled.
What is the measurement basis for a route of this size?
Route volume is 546 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.