Scranton to Taylor Borough
Pennsylvania Act 32 local earned income tax · LACKAWANNA to LACKAWANNA County · tax year 2026
Home rate
3.4%
Scranton, residents
Work rate
1%
Taylor Borough, non-residents
You pay
3.4%
the higher of the two
Cost of the commute
$0
a year, above the home rate
What this commute costs you
no extra local taxScranton already charges its residents more than Taylor Borough charges commuters, so the home rate governs and the job adds nothing at all. You pay the solid bar only — Pennsylvania charges the higher of the two rates, never their sum. Local earned income tax only; state, federal and payroll tax apply on top.
What this commute actually costs
- Nothing changes for this commute. A resident of Scranton pays about 3.4% either way. It makes no difference whether they work at home or travel to Taylor Borough. The home rate is the higher of the two, and the higher one wins. That is $2,040 a year.
- A quiet route out of Scranton. About 595 people commute to Taylor Borough, placing it 7 of 9 tracked destinations. The arithmetic above holds regardless of how many travel it.
- The Scranton to Taylor Borough commute is tax-neutral. Scranton's resident rate of about 3.4% is not exceeded by Taylor Borough's non-resident rate, so under the state's rule the resident rate applies and the effective figure is about 3.4% — $2,040 annually at the reference salary. Withholding is remitted to the residence in full and the work location receives no share.
- With 595 workers, this is a lower-volume link, 7 of 9 destinations recorded for Scranton. Volume does not affect the rate determination; it affects only how many people the determination reaches.
Where the money goes
A $75,000 salary
- Federal income tax$7,670
- Social Security and Medicare$5,738
- State income tax$2,303
- Yours$59,290
| Federal income tax10.23% | $7,670 |
|---|---|
| Social Security and Medicare7.65% | $5,738 |
| State income tax3.07% | $2,303 |
| Yours79.05% | $59,290 |
The arithmetic, side by side
| If you worked in Scranton | $2,040 |
|---|---|
| Working in Taylor Borough | $2,040 |
| Difference | $0 |
On a reference salary of $60,000 a year. The local tax is flat, so every figure scales with your own pay.
What this page does not cover
- One thing worth being clear about, because it catches people out. You are not charged by both places. Scranton and Taylor Borough do not add their rates together. Pennsylvania picks the higher of the two, and that is what you pay. Adding them would roughly double the bill.
- Only one tax is on this page. It is the local earned income tax that Scranton and Taylor Borough levy. State tax, federal tax and Social Security all still apply. All three are the same wherever in Pennsylvania you work.
- Sixty thousand a year is a benchmark. It is not a guess at what people in Scranton earn. No published wage figure exists for single municipalities. The rate is the durable part of this page. The dollars scale straight up and down with whatever you earn in Taylor Borough.
- A postal address in Scranton does not prove which municipality taxes you. Boundaries and postcodes disagree often enough here that the state publishes a lookup. Philadelphia is a special case too. Its wage tax sits outside the rules that govern Taylor Borough.
- Pennsylvania's local rule is a greater-of rule, not an additive one: the liability for a Scranton resident working in Taylor Borough is the higher of the two applicable rates, not their sum. The distinction is worth stating plainly because the additive reading is intuitive and would overstate the charge by roughly a factor of two. What is divided between the municipalities is the remittance, not the worker's liability.
- The scope here is the municipal earned income tax alone. State, federal and payroll taxes are unaffected by the choice between Scranton and Taylor Borough and are therefore outside the model. A total tax position requires adding them; a comparison of the two locations does not.
- The reference salary is a stated benchmark, not an estimate of Scranton earnings, for which no municipal-level published source exists. The local earned income tax is proportional, so all dollar figures for the Taylor Borough commute scale linearly with income and the rate comparison holds at every salary.
- Municipal taxing jurisdiction is determined by boundary rather than by postal address, and the two diverge frequently enough in Pennsylvania that the DCED lookup should be treated as authoritative for Scranton. Philadelphia is additionally outside this regime, administering its own wage tax on residents and non-residents under separate authority, so it does not follow the treatment described for Taylor Borough.
Questions people ask
Do I pay local tax twice — once where I work and once where I live?
Only once, at the higher rate. Between Scranton's about 3.4% and Taylor Borough's about 1%, the larger governs — the two are never added together.
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 Scranton would.
Which town's rate am I actually paying?
The one where you live. Scranton levies at least as much as Taylor Borough, so its rate applies and the crossing costs you nothing extra.
Is this commute common enough for the numbers to mean anything?
It is a smaller route: 595 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 Pennsylvania's local earned income tax law allocate liability between two districts?
Pennsylvania's local earned income tax law assigns the higher of the residence rate (about 3.4%) and the non-resident work rate (about 1%); liabilities are never summed. The employer withholds at the governing rate and remits through the work district's collector, which then distributes to the residence district.
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.
Which district's rate governs on this route?
The residence rate equals or exceeds the work district's non-resident rate and therefore governs. Working outside the residence district does not increase employee liability on this route; it affects only inter-district distribution.
What is the measurement basis for a route of this size?
Route volume is 595 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.