Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists in New Hampshire
May 2025 wages · tax year 2026
You keep
$82,993
after federal, FICA and New Hampshire tax
Tax takes
$22,427
21.3% of the whole
Worth, in national money
$78,782
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
$105,420
Kept after tax
$82,993
Worth in national money
$78,782
State rank
10
of 51 states
What this pays, and what it is worth
- Pay for this job is strong here. New Hampshire's middle earner gets $105,420, putting the state 10 of 51 — about 10.41% ahead of the national figure.
- Locally, this pays well. Among 488 occupations New Hampshire reports, this job comes in at 52 — comfortably in the upper quarter.
- The wage here flatters the reality. From $105,420 the take-home is $82,993. But New Hampshire costs more than the national average, so that money behaves more like $78,782 would elsewhere. Worth knowing before comparing offers across states. The average is lower, $98,100, so pay clusters nearer the top than usual.
- For magnetic resonance imaging technologists, New Hampshire sits in the upper band nationally: a median of $105,420, ranking 10 of 51 and running about 10.41% above the national midpoint. Nominal advantage of this size is usually, though not always, large enough to survive the state's own tax and price levels.
- Magnetic resonance imaging technologists ranks 52 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 $82,993 for magnetic resonance imaging technologists, from $105,420. The state's price level exceeds the national average, so the price-adjusted equivalent is $78,782. ⚠️ 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 $98,100 falls below the median, a left skew that is uncommon in 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: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists
The state median for this job
| Lowest tenth earn under | $79,800 |
|---|---|
| Half earn under | $105,420 |
| Top tenth earn over | $119,030 |
| This salary | $105,420 |
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 | $82,993 |
|---|---|
| Take-home in Texas | $82,993 |
| Once local prices are leveledBEA price parity | +$6,624 |
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 | $105,420 |
|---|---|
| You could take a cut of | −$9,149 |
| 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 magnetic resonance imaging technologists in New Hampshire earn under $105,420 and half over. The published range runs $79,800 at the tenth percentile to $119,030 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 $82,993, worked from $105,420. 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 52 of 488.
- Two cautions on $78,782, the adjusted value of that $105,420 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 52 of 488 locally.
- Figures are distribution medians for magnetic resonance imaging technologists in New Hampshire, not entry or offer rates. The published band runs $79,800 to $119,030; 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 $82,993, on $105,420 for work ranking 52 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 52 of 488 in the state.
- This $78,782 adjusted figure, worked from $105,420, 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 52 of 488 in the state. The occupation ranks 52 of 488 locally.
Questions people ask
Is this the average pay for the job?
No — it is the middle. Half of these workers earn more and half earn less. The average is $98,100, pulled upward by the top of the range, which is why the middle is the fairer number to plan against.
How much does pay for this job actually vary?
Less than you might expect. The bottom tenth earn $79,800 and the top tenth $119,030, so most people doing this work in New Hampshire sit within a fairly tight band.
Does a bigger number here mean I am better off?
The number and the value are different things. New Hampshire costs more than the national average, so this take-home stretches like $78,782 rather than its face figure.
Is most of this wage taxed away?
Less than people assume. $82,993 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.
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 $98,100. 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 is the dispersion of this occupation's wage distribution?
The tenth-to-ninetieth percentile span ($79,800 to $119,030) sits at or below the family's median dispersion, indicating relatively standardized compensation. Percentiles are published per state, so this dispersion is specific to New Hampshire rather than a national figure.
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 $78,782 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 $82,993 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.