Norton to Akron
Ohio municipal income tax, Chapter 718 framework · credit set by Norton ordinance · tax year 2026
Work city takes
2.5%
Akron, on income earned there
Home city charges
2%
Norton, residents
Credit back
$900
capped by the ceiling
Cost of the commute
$600
a year, above working at home
What it costs you
ceiling bindsNorton'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 Norton 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
- Norton does credit you for the tax Akron takes. It just stops early. The credit cannot pass about 1.5% of your income, and Akron charges more than that, so it runs out before the bill does. Working there costs $600 a year more than working at home would. All in, local tax is $1,800.
- Akron pulls workers in from 19 different places, and this route from Norton ranks 12 of them by size. About 1,160 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. Norton allows residents about 100% of tax paid to another municipality, subject to a ceiling of about 1.5% of income, and on this pairing it is the ceiling rather than the share that binds. Akron withholds $1,500 at about 2.5%; Norton returns $900 of that and collects the remainder of its own about 2% resident levy. The workplace accordingly costs $600 above the home-only position, against a total of $1,800.
- Akron is a major regional workplace, drawing recorded flows from 19 separate origins in this dataset. The route from Norton ranks 12 among them by worker count, at roughly 1,160. 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 |
|---|---|
| Norton charges residents | $1,200 |
| Less the credit Norton gives back | $900 |
| Total local tax | $1,800 |
| If you also lived in Akron | $1,200 |
| Difference | $600 |
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 Norton charge you. Norton 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.
- One thing to keep in mind. Ohio does not require Norton to give any credit at all. That choice sits with the city, and cities revisit it. A vote in Norton 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 Norton does not touch it. If your district charges one, add it to everything here.
- These figures are the local layer alone. Whatever Norton 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.
- Sixty thousand a year is the assumption behind the dollars. It is stated rather than measured. No wage figure exists for a place the size of Norton. The percentages are the durable part of this page, and they do not shift with what you earn in Akron.
- 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, Norton taxes its residents on everything, and Norton then credits some, all or none of what Akron collected. The credit is the entire mechanism, and it is set by Norton rather than by the state.
- The credit rule modeled here is Norton's own, adopted by ordinance and amendable by Norton 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 Norton 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 Norton 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 Norton 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 Norton 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 Norton costs about 2%, reduced by whatever share of the work tax the home city recognizes.
What does crossing this boundary actually cost me?
About $600 a year. That is the gap between this commute and an identical job in Norton, and it exists purely because the boundary sits between them.
Is this a common enough commute to be worth modeling?
Yes — 1,160 people make this exact journey, according to the federal employment survey that tracks where workers live against where they work. Routes below a volume floor are not published, so a page existing here means the commute is real and measured.
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%, Norton 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 $600 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 1,160 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.