Green to Akron
Ohio municipal income tax, Chapter 718 framework · credit set by Green ordinance · tax year 2026
Work city takes
2.5%
Akron, on income earned there
Home city charges
2%
Green, residents
Credit back
$1,200
capped by the ceiling
Cost of the commute
$300
a year, above working at home
What it costs you
ceiling bindsGreen'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 Green 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
- A credit with a ceiling is not a full credit. Green hands back $1,200 of what Akron took and then stops, because its own rules cap the credit at about 2% of income. You make up the difference yourself. Over a year that difference is $300 you would not owe if you worked where you live.
- The run from Green is one of 19 recorded commutes into Akron, and it comes 2 by the number of workers on it, about 2,871. Every one of those routes meets the same rate in Akron. What separates them is what each home city gives back.
- Roughly 2,871 people travel from Green to Akron for work. Multiply one household's answer by that, and the credit rule stops being a detail.
- The credit here is real but bounded. Green allows residents about 100% of tax paid to another municipality, subject to a ceiling of about 2% of income, and on this pairing it is the ceiling rather than the share that binds. Akron withholds $1,500 at about 2.5%; Green returns $1,200 of that and collects the remainder of its own about 2% resident levy. The workplace accordingly costs $300 above the home-only position, against a total of $1,500.
- Akron is a major regional workplace, drawing recorded flows from 19 separate origins in this dataset. The route from Green ranks 2 among them by worker count, at roughly 2,871. 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.
- Census origin-destination statistics record approximately 2,871 workers commuting from Green to Akron, 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 Green 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
| Akron takes, on income earned there | $1,500 |
|---|---|
| Green charges residents | $1,200 |
| Less the credit Green gives back | $1,200 |
| Total local tax | $1,500 |
| If you also lived in Akron | $1,200 |
| Difference | $300 |
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
- Do not add the two rates up, and do not assume the bigger one simply wins. Neither is how Ohio works. Both Akron and Green charge you. Green may then hand back what Akron took, or part of it, or none of it. Everything on this page turns on which of those it does.
- These figures rest on a local rule, not a state one. Green decides how much credit to give for tax already paid to Akron. It is worth confirming the current position with the city or its collection agency, because this is the part most likely to have changed.
- This page covers city income tax only. Your school district may charge its own on top, and many in Ohio do. That one follows your address in Green rather than your workplace in Akron, and it is not credited against anything.
- 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 Green and Akron. That is exactly why they are left out.
- 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 Green 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, Green taxes its residents on everything, and Green then credits some, all or none of what Akron collected. The credit is the entire mechanism, and it is set by Green rather than by the state.
- The credit rule modeled here is Green's own, adopted by ordinance and amendable by Green 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 Green 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 Green 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 Green 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 Green 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 Green costs about 2%, reduced by whatever share of the work tax the home city recognizes.
What does crossing this boundary actually cost me?
Working across the line costs $300 a year here. The same salary earned in Green would not carry it.
Is this a common enough commute to be worth modeling?
It is. 2,871 workers travel this pair, per the federal origin-destination survey; smaller routes fall below the publication floor and get no page.
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%, Green 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 $300 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 basis for including this route?
Route volume is 2,871 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.