Urban and Regional Planners in New Hampshire
May 2025 wages · tax year 2026
You keep
$60,791
after federal, FICA and New Hampshire tax
Tax takes
$13,069
17.7% of the whole
Worth, in national money
$57,706
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
$73,860
Kept after tax
$60,791
Worth in national money
$57,706
State rank
42
of 51 states
What this pays, and what it is worth
- Pay for urban and regional planners is on the low side in New Hampshire. The middle earner gets $73,860. That is 42 of 51 states, and about 17.31% under the national figure. Whether that matters depends on what things cost here.
- Ordinary, locally speaking. Urban and regional planners ranks 169 among 488 occupations New Hampshire publishes pay for.
- Costs eat into it here. Of $73,860, tax leaves $60,791 — and because New Hampshire is dearer than average, that stretches only as far as $57,706 would nationally. Averages run higher here, $78,280, since top earners drag the number up.
- For urban and regional planners, New Hampshire sits in the lower band at $73,860, ranking 42 of 51 and trailing the national median by about 17.31%. Nominal rankings routinely invert once tax and regional price level are applied, so this position should not be read as the conclusion.
- Position 169 of 488 in New Hampshire places urban and regional planners 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.
- After tax, $60,791 remains from the New Hampshire median of $73,860 for this occupation. Applying the state's above-average price parity yields $57,706 in national-average terms — the quantity relevant to a relocation decision, and the one absent from essentially every published wage comparison. Mean pay of $78,280 exceeds the median, so the upper tail is doing the work.
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: Urban and Regional Planners
The state median for this job
| Lowest tenth earn under | $55,900 |
|---|---|
| Half earn under | $73,860 |
| Top tenth earn over | $109,240 |
| This salary | $73,860 |
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 | $60,791 |
|---|---|
| Take-home in Texas | $60,791 |
| Once local prices are leveledBEA price parity | +$4,852 |
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 | $73,860 |
|---|---|
| You could take a cut of | −$6,702 |
| 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 urban and regional planners in New Hampshire earn under $73,860 and half over. The published range runs $55,900 at the tenth percentile to $109,240 at the ninetieth. Experience and employer move an individual a long way inside that.
- In New Hampshire the take-home figure of $60,791, from $73,860, 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 169 of 488 occupations here.
- Two cautions on $57,706, the adjusted value of that $73,860 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 169 of 488 locally.
- Figures are distribution medians for urban and regional planners in New Hampshire, not entry or offer rates. The published band runs $55,900 to $109,240; 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 $60,791 from $73,860. 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 169 of 488 locally.
- This $57,706 adjusted figure, worked from $73,860, 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 169 of 488 in the state. The occupation ranks 169 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 $78,280, dragged up by high earners; the middle figure describes a typical worker better.
Why is the pay range for this job so wide?
Because one job title covers very different work. The bottom tenth here earn $55,900 and the top tenth $109,240 — experience, employer and specialism separate them, and a single figure hides all three.
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 $57,706 — the wage did not change, only what it covers.
Is most of this wage taxed away?
No. $60,791 survives, because New Hampshire levies no wage income tax. The federal share does not change with the state you work in.
Can I compare this job across every state?
This occupation is published everywhere — all 51 of them — so comparing states measures real differences rather than gaps in the data.
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 $78,280. 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 ($55,900) and the ninetieth ($109,240) 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 $57,706 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 $60,791 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.