Stow to Hudson
Ohio municipal income tax, Chapter 718 framework · credit set by Stow ordinance · tax year 2026
Work city takes
2%
Hudson, on income earned there
Home city charges
2%
Stow, 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 taxStow credits only part of what Hudson takes, so the remainder is taxed twice. Solid is what you pay; the faded part of the Stow 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
- You can stop worrying about this one. Stow credits everything Hudson withholds, right up to its own rate of about 2%. Crossing the line to work adds nothing. Local income tax comes to $1,200 for the year, exactly as it would if the job were on your own street.
- Nothing to pay, and nothing to spare. Stow's credit stops precisely where Hudson's tax stops. The two cancel exactly, which is a comfortable place to be and a fragile one.
- This route from Stow is 2 of 3 recorded commutes into Hudson, with around 996 people on it. Treat the ranking loosely. Only flows above a certain size are published at all.
- This pairing is neutral to the worker. Hudson withholds about 2% on income earned there, and Stow, which levies about 2% on residents, credits that payment in full without reaching its own ceiling. Liability at the reference salary is therefore $1,200 — precisely what the same earnings would attract with no commute at all. What the arrangement alters is the division of revenue between Hudson and Stow, not the sum leaving the worker's pay.
- This pairing sits exactly on its limit. Hudson's rate and the ceiling Stow 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 Hudson, or any reduction in the ceiling by Stow, falls directly on the worker from the first dollar.
- Hudson records 3 qualifying commuting origins in this dataset, of which Stow ranks 2 by worker count at approximately 996. A workplace of this size draws from a small enough set of origins that the comparison is indicative rather than statistical, and the published floor excludes an unknown tail of smaller flows.
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
| Hudson takes, on income earned there | $1,200 |
|---|---|
| Stow charges residents | $1,200 |
| Less the credit Stow gives back | $1,200 |
| Total local tax | $1,200 |
| If you also lived in Hudson | $1,200 |
| 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 Stow: it may credit all of what Hudson 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. Stow decides how much credit to give for tax already paid to Hudson. 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 Stow rather than your workplace in Hudson, and it is not credited against anything.
- These figures are the local layer alone. Whatever Stow and Hudson 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.
- Every dollar amount here uses a salary of sixty thousand a year. It is a benchmark, not a guess at what people in Stow 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 Hudson 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. Hudson taxes what is earned within its boundaries, Stow taxes its residents on everything, and Stow then credits some, all or none of what Hudson collected. The credit is the entire mechanism, and it is set by Stow rather than by the state.
- The credit rule modeled here is Stow's own, adopted by ordinance and amendable by Stow 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 Stow can therefore change every figure on this page without anything altering in Hudson 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 Hudson, and no municipal credit applies to it. A resident of Stow 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 Stow and Hudson, 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 Stow to Hudson 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?
Two claims, one partly canceled. Hudson takes about 2% because you work there, Stow charges about 2% because you live there, and the home city credits some of the first against the second.
Does working in a different town cost me anything?
On this route, nothing. You owe exactly what you would have owed working at home — the boundary is real on a map and invisible on your pay stub, which is not true of every pair of towns here.
Is this commute common enough for the numbers to mean anything?
996 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.
Both towns charge the same — does the boundary matter at all then?
Not to your total. Stow and Hudson both levy about 2%, so the amount is settled either way — what the boundary decides is which authority receives it, and that is an accounting question rather than a cost to you.
How does a resident credit allocate liability between two municipalities?
Both jurisdictions assert a claim: Hudson on the basis of work location at about 2%, Stow 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.
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 996 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.
What is the effect of identical rates either side of the boundary?
Both jurisdictions levy about 2%, so the governing rate is identical regardless of which rule allocates it. The boundary affects revenue attribution between authorities, not employee liability.