Producers and Directors in New Hampshire
May 2025 wages · tax year 2026
You keep
$51,643
after federal, FICA and New Hampshire tax
Tax takes
$9,917
16.1% of the whole
Worth, in national money
$49,023
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
$61,560
Kept after tax
$51,643
Worth in national money
$49,023
State rank
34
of 50 states
What this pays, and what it is worth
- New Hampshire is among the lower-paying states for producers and directors. The middle earner takes $61,560, ranking 34 of 50 states — about 31.87% below the national middle. Costs here are often lower too, which the figures further down account for.
- Ordinary, locally speaking. Producers and directors ranks 250 among 488 occupations New Hampshire publishes pay for.
- New Hampshire is an expensive state, and the adjusted figure shows it. From $61,560 the take-home is $51,643; in national-average money that behaves like $49,023. The average comes to $65,050, above the middle, thanks to the top of the range.
- New Hampshire ranks 34 of 50 for producers and directors, with a median of $61,560 — about 31.87% below the national figure. A nominal shortfall is not by itself a real one: lower-paying states frequently carry lower tax and lower price levels, and the adjusted figures below are where that is settled rather than assumed.
- Position 250 of 488 in New Hampshire places producers and directors in the middle of the state's wage distribution. Because within-state and cross-state rankings measure different things, this figure and the national one above should be read together rather than as a single verdict.
- Take-home for producers and directors in New Hampshire, on $61,560, is $51,643; deflated by the state's price level, $49,023. ⚠️ The deflator is statewide, so it understates the erosion in the state's metropolitan areas and overstates it outside them. At $65,050 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: Producers and Directors
The state median for this job
| Lowest tenth earn under | $26,560 |
|---|---|
| Half earn under | $61,560 |
| Top tenth earn over | $96,560 |
| This salary | $61,560 |
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 | $51,643 |
|---|---|
| Take-home in Texas | $51,643 |
| Once local prices are leveledBEA price parity | +$4,122 |
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 | $61,560 |
|---|---|
| You could take a cut of | −$4,985 |
| 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 producers and directors in New Hampshire earn under $61,560 and half over. The published range runs $26,560 at the tenth percentile to $96,560 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 $51,643, worked from $61,560. 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 250 of 488.
- Two cautions on $49,023, the adjusted value of that $61,560 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 250 of 488 locally.
- Figures are distribution medians for producers and directors in New Hampshire, not entry or offer rates. The published band runs $26,560 to $96,560; 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 $51,643, on $61,560 for work ranking 250 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 250 of 488 in the state.
- This $49,023 adjusted figure, worked from $61,560, 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 250 of 488 in the state. The occupation ranks 250 of 488 locally.
Questions people ask
Is this the average pay for the job?
Half earn more than this and half earn less. The average sits at $65,050 because a long tail of high pay lifts it, so the two answer different questions.
Why is the pay range for this job so wide?
Because one job title covers very different work. The bottom tenth here earn $26,560 and the top tenth $96,560 — experience, employer and specialism separate them, and a single figure hides all three.
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 $49,023 of national purchasing power.
Is most of this wage taxed away?
Most of it arrives. $51,643 lands after tax, since there is no state income tax on wages here — though the federal floor is identical in every state.
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 50 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 $65,050. 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 ($26,560) and the ninetieth ($96,560) 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 $49,023 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 $51,643 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 50 of the fifty-one jurisdictions. Suppression reflects sample size and confidentiality rules, and cannot be read as an absence of employment.