Human Resources Managers in New Hampshire
May 2025 wages · tax year 2026
You keep
$103,539
after federal, FICA and New Hampshire tax
Tax takes
$31,462
23.3% of the whole
Worth, in national money
$98,285
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
$135,000
Kept after tax
$103,539
Worth in national money
$98,285
State rank
23
of 51 states
What this pays, and what it is worth
- New Hampshire sits in the middle of the pack for human resources managers. The median is $135,000, ranking 23 of 51 states with figures. Close enough to the national middle that where you live matters more than the headline suggests.
- Locally, this pays well. Among 488 occupations New Hampshire reports, human resources managers comes in at 25 — comfortably in the upper quarter.
- The wage here flatters the reality. From $135,000 the take-home is $103,539. But New Hampshire costs more than the national average, so that money behaves more like $98,285 would elsewhere. Worth knowing before comparing offers across states. The average is higher, $146,430, because the best-paid pull it up.
- New Hampshire occupies the middle band for human resources managers: a median of $135,000, ranking 23 of 51. Where nominal pay is close to the national figure, the tax and price adjustments below carry proportionally more weight in determining the real outcome.
- Human resources managers ranks 25 of 488 occupations by median in New Hampshire, in the top quartile. Within-state position is largely independent of national position, so this holds regardless of how the state compares to others for the same work.
- Retained pay after federal, FICA and New Hampshire income tax is $103,539 for human resources managers, from $135,000. The state's price level exceeds the national average, so the price-adjusted equivalent is $98,285. ⚠️ This is purchasing power and not a wage; cross-state offer comparisons that stop at the nominal figure systematically overvalue high-cost states. The mean of $146,430 sits above the median, the right skew typical of wage data.
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: Human Resources Managers
The state median for this job
| Lowest tenth earn under | $79,120 |
|---|---|
| Half earn under | $135,000 |
| Top tenth earn over | $221,970 |
| This salary | $135,000 |
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 | $103,539 |
|---|---|
| Take-home in Texas | $103,539 |
| Once local prices are leveledBEA price parity | +$8,263 |
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 | $135,000 |
|---|---|
| You could take a cut of | −$11,748 |
| 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 human resources managers in New Hampshire earn under $135,000 and half over. The published range runs $79,120 at the tenth percentile to $221,970 at the ninetieth. Experience and employer move an individual a long way inside that.
- One filer, no dependants, no pension contributions — that is the household behind New Hampshire's $103,539, worked from $135,000. That is on purpose. It lets states be compared with each other, not with each other's family circumstances. Local city taxes are left out. Locally this work ranks 25 of 488.
- Two cautions on $98,285, the adjusted value of that $135,000 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 25 of 488 locally.
- Figures are distribution medians for human resources managers in New Hampshire, not entry or offer rates. The published band runs $79,120 to $221,970; 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.
- The New Hampshire take-home of $103,539, on $135,000 for work ranking 25 of 488 locally, models the simplest household deliberately: holding it constant is what makes the interstate comparison meaningful. It also means the absolute figure overstates liability for most real filers, and municipal income taxes are outside the model entirely. The occupation ranks 25 of 488 in the state.
- This $98,285 adjusted figure, worked from $135,000, 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 25 of 488 in the state. The occupation ranks 25 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 $146,430, dragged up by high earners; the middle figure describes a typical worker better.
Why is the pay range for this job so wide?
The label is broader than the work. From $79,120 at the bottom tenth to $221,970 at the top, the same title covers roles that share little beyond a name.
Does a bigger number here mean I am better off?
A larger wage in a dearer place is not automatically more. Adjusted for local prices, this pay behaves like $98,285 of national purchasing power.
Is most of this wage taxed away?
Most of it arrives. $103,539 lands after tax, since there is no state income tax on wages here — though the federal floor is identical in every state.
Can I compare this job across every state?
All 51 jurisdictions report this work, which makes the ranking a like-for-like one.
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 $146,430. 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 ($79,120) and the ninetieth ($221,970) 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 $98,285 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 $103,539 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.
Is this occupation's state coverage complete?
State-level estimates are published for all 51 jurisdictions for this occupation, so cross-state comparison is not confounded by suppression. ⚠️ Estimates remain survey-based and carry sampling error; small differences between adjacent states should not be over-read.