Cleveland to Brooklyn
Ohio municipal income tax, Chapter 718 framework · credit set by Cleveland ordinance · tax year 2026
Work city takes
2.5%
Brooklyn, on income earned there
Home city charges
2.5%
Cleveland, residents
Credit back
$1,500
a share of the work tax
Cost of the commute
$0
a year, above working at home
What it costs you
no extra local taxCleveland credits only part of what Brooklyn takes, so the remainder is taxed twice. Solid is what you pay; the faded part of the Cleveland 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 Brooklyn costs you nothing extra in local tax. Cleveland charges residents about 2.5%, and it credits back every dollar Brooklyn 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.
- The numbers meet exactly here. Brooklyn takes the most that Cleveland will hand back, down to the cent. You pay no more than you would living and working at home, but there is no cushion left in it at all.
- This is the only route into Brooklyn large enough to show up in the data. About 2,323 people travel it from Cleveland. Other people commute there too. Their numbers are simply too small to be counted separately.
- This is a well-traveled road. About 2,323 people go from Cleveland to work in Brooklyn. That is a lot of households meeting the same rule at the same time.
- This pairing is neutral to the worker. Brooklyn withholds about 2.5% on income earned there, and Cleveland, 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 Brooklyn and Cleveland, not the sum leaving the worker's pay.
- This pairing sits exactly on its limit. Brooklyn's rate and the ceiling Cleveland places on its credit coincide to the cent, so the credit absorbs the work-city tax precisely and not a dollar further. The commute is costless today and has no margin whatsoever: any increase by Brooklyn, or any reduction in the ceiling by Cleveland, falls directly on the worker from the first dollar.
- Within this dataset Brooklyn draws a single recorded commuting flow of qualifying size — the one from Cleveland, carrying roughly 2,323 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.
- Census origin-destination statistics record approximately 2,323 workers commuting from Cleveland to Brooklyn, placing this among the larger intra-state flows in Ohio. The outcome set out above therefore has aggregate fiscal consequence for both municipalities, not merely individual consequence for the worker: the credit Cleveland does or does not extend is applied to every one of them at once.
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
| Brooklyn takes, on income earned there | $1,500 |
|---|---|
| Cleveland charges residents | $1,500 |
| Less the credit Cleveland gives back | $1,500 |
| Total local tax | $1,500 |
| If you also lived in Brooklyn | $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
- Here is the shape of it, because the arithmetic is easy to get wrong. You are taxed by both cities. What happens next is up to Cleveland: it may credit all of what Brooklyn took, some of it, or none at all. That choice belongs to the city rather than to the state, which is why identical salaries in neighboring towns land so differently.
- These figures rest on a local rule, not a state one. Cleveland decides how much credit to give for tax already paid to Brooklyn. It is worth confirming the current position with the city or its collection agency, because this is the part most likely to have changed.
- Watch for one more local tax. School district income tax is separate from what Cleveland and Brooklyn charge, and plenty of Ohio districts levy it. Working elsewhere makes no difference to it, and no credit offsets it.
- These figures are the local layer alone. Whatever Cleveland and Brooklyn 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 Brooklyn charges and what Cleveland 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. Brooklyn taxes what is earned within its boundaries, Cleveland taxes its residents on everything, and Cleveland then credits some, all or none of what Brooklyn collected. The credit is the entire mechanism, and it is set by Cleveland rather than by the state.
- The credit rule modeled here is Cleveland's own, adopted by ordinance and amendable by Cleveland 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 Cleveland can therefore change every figure on this page without anything altering in Brooklyn 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 Brooklyn, and no municipal credit applies to it. A resident of Cleveland 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 Cleveland and Brooklyn, 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 Cleveland to Brooklyn 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?
Both places charge you, but the city you live in gives back some of what the other one took. Brooklyn taxes you for working there at about 2.5%; Cleveland then charges its own about 2.5% and credits part of the first against it. Whether anything is left over depends on how generous that credit is.
Does working in a different town cost me anything?
Nothing extra. The tax is redirected rather than increased, so this particular crossing costs you no more than working in Cleveland would.
Is this a common enough commute to be worth modeling?
It is. 2,323 workers travel this pair, per the federal origin-destination survey; smaller routes fall below the publication floor and get no page.
Both towns charge the same — does the boundary matter at all then?
Not for what you pay. Both sides charge about 2.5%; the line only determines who banks it.
How does a resident credit allocate liability between two municipalities?
Both jurisdictions assert a claim: Brooklyn on the basis of work location at about 2.5%, Cleveland 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 basis for including this route?
Route volume is 2,323 workers, sourced from Census LODES origin-destination data. Pairs below the publication threshold are excluded rather than imputed, so page existence reflects measured commuting volume.
What is the effect of identical rates either side of the boundary?
Both jurisdictions levy about 2.5%, so the governing rate is identical regardless of which rule allocates it. The boundary affects revenue attribution between authorities, not employee liability.