Data Scientists in New Hampshire
May 2025 wages · tax year 2026
You keep
$79,616
after federal, FICA and New Hampshire tax
Tax takes
$21,004
20.9% of the whole
Worth, in national money
$75,577
New Hampshire costs more than average
On that salary you would be around the 25th percentile for this work in New Hampshire — roughly, since only five points along the band are published.
One filer, standard deduction, no dependants and nothing paid in before tax — the same household the rest of this page uses, so the comparison holds. City and school-district income taxes are not included.
Median here
$100,620
Kept after tax
$79,616
Worth in national money
$75,577
State rank
28
of 49 states
What this pays, and what it is worth
- Neither high nor low. New Hampshire is 28 of 49 states for data scientists, with a middle wage of $100,620. What that is worth is the question the rest of this page answers.
- This is one of the better-paid jobs in New Hampshire. It ranks 72 out of 488 occupations the state publishes figures for, which puts it in the top quarter locally.
- New Hampshire is an expensive state, and the adjusted figure shows it. From $100,620 the take-home is $79,616; in national-average money that behaves like $75,577. The average comes to $109,880, above the middle, thanks to the top of the range.
- New Hampshire ranks 28 of 49 for data scientists at $100,620. The nominal figure is unremarkable; the adjusted figures are where the state's actual position for this occupation is determined.
- Within New Hampshire, data scientists ranks 72 of 488 occupations by median pay, placing it in the top quartile of the local distribution. This is the comparison a resident actually makes — against neighbors rather than against the same job elsewhere.
- Take-home for data scientists in New Hampshire, on $100,620, is $79,616; deflated by the state's price level, $75,577. ⚠️ The deflator is statewide, so it understates the erosion in the state's metropolitan areas and overstates it outside them. At $109,880 the mean overshoots the median — the usual right-skewed shape.
Compare this career across states
Choose your filing status and local taxes, compare pay, and keep a shortlist.Compare wage and personal-pay outcomes by state, with selected resident local taxes and saved career choices.
Pay band: Data Scientists
The state median for this job
| Lowest tenth earn under | $73,480 |
|---|---|
| Half earn under | $100,620 |
| Top tenth earn over | $155,020 |
| This salary | $100,620 |
Positions between the published tenth, quarter, half, three-quarter and ninetieth points are estimated by straight line.
The same pay, somewhere else
The state median for this job
| Take-home in New Hampshire | $79,616 |
|---|---|
| Take-home in Texas | $79,616 |
| Once local prices are leveledBEA price parity | +$6,354 |
The raise and the real gain point in opposite directions here.
State income tax and state price levels only. No city income tax, and no housing market.
What you would need there
The state median for this job
| To match take-home only | $100,620 |
|---|---|
| You could take a cut of | −$8,777 |
| Prices in Texas | 97 vs 105 |
State taxes and state price levels only. No city tax, and no housing market.
Sources and assumptions
- A median is the middle, not an offer. Half of data scientists in New Hampshire earn under $100,620 and half over. The published range runs $73,480 at the tenth percentile to $155,020 at the ninetieth. Experience and employer move an individual a long way inside that.
- In New Hampshire the take-home figure of $79,616, from $100,620, assumes one filer, no dependants, and nothing paid into a pension before tax. Each of those lowers the bill, so treat it as the plain case. City and school-district income taxes are not included either, and in a few states those are real money. It ranks 72 of 488 occupations here.
- Two cautions on $75,577, the adjusted value of that $100,620 median. It levels out prices with a single number for all of New Hampshire. No actual address matches that. The wage figures and price figures are also from different years. Each is published on its own timetable. This work sits at 72 of 488 locally.
- Figures are distribution medians for data scientists in New Hampshire, not entry or offer rates. The published band runs $73,480 to $155,020; within-state dispersion of that width routinely exceeds the dispersion between states, so tenure, employer and metropolitan area predict an individual's pay better than geography does.
- Take-home for New Hampshire is computed for a single filer taking the standard deduction with no dependants and no pre-tax contributions, giving $79,616 from $100,620. Each omitted item reduces taxable income, so the figure is a lower bound on retained pay for this household shape. Municipal and school-district income taxes are excluded, which understates the burden materially in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland. The occupation ranks 72 of 488 locally.
- This $75,577 adjusted figure, worked from $100,620, rests on a state-level price parity averaging over within-state dispersion larger than much of the between-state dispersion. Wage and price vintages differ by publication schedule. The result is directionally sound and not address-specific, for work at 72 of 488 in the state. The occupation ranks 72 of 488 locally.
Questions people ask
Is this the average pay for the job?
It is the midpoint, not the average. The average here is $109,880, dragged up by high earners; the middle figure describes a typical worker better.
Why is the pay range for this job so wide?
One title, many jobs. The lowest tenth take $73,480, the highest tenth $155,020, and what separates them is experience, employer and what exactly the role does.
Does a bigger number here mean I am better off?
Not on its own. Prices in New Hampshire run above the national level, so the same dollars buy less here. Adjusted for that, this pay is worth $75,577 — the wage did not change, only what it covers.
Is most of this wage taxed away?
Less than people assume. $79,616 of this wage reaches your account, because New Hampshire takes no income tax from wages — but federal tax, Social Security and Medicare still apply exactly as they do everywhere else.
Why is this job missing from some states?
Because the survey suppresses a figure when too few employers report it. This occupation has published pay in 49 states — the rest are withheld to protect confidentiality, which is not the same as nobody doing the work there.
How does the published median differ from the mean for this occupation?
The median is the midpoint of the distribution; the mean for this occupation in New Hampshire is $109,880. Wage distributions are right-skewed, so the mean exceeds the median wherever a minority earn substantially more. BLS publishes both because substituting one for the other misstates a typical worker's pay.
What drives the percentile dispersion in this occupation?
Dispersion between the tenth percentile ($73,480) and the ninetieth ($155,020) exceeds the family median dispersion. SOC codes aggregate roles differing in seniority, industry and specialisation, and BLS does not disaggregate below the detailed occupation level, so within-title variance is not separable from the published series.
How does the state price level affect real compensation?
New Hampshire's regional price parity sits above the national average, so nominal wages overstate purchasing power. Deflating take-home by the state price level gives $75,577 in national-average terms. ⚠️ RPPs are an all-items index; housing parities vary far more widely than the headline figure.
Why is the take-home ratio comparatively high in this state?
New Hampshire levies no personal income tax on wages, so take-home of $79,616 reflects the federal layer and FICA alone. Federal income tax and FICA are unchanged; states without a wage income tax generally recover revenue through consumption and property bases instead.
Why does this occupation lack published estimates in every state?
BLS suppresses estimates failing disclosure or reliability criteria. This occupation has published state-level estimates in 49 of the fifty-one jurisdictions. Suppression reflects sample size and confidentiality rules, and cannot be read as an absence of employment.