Is Your Salary Good? Compare Across 75 Major US Cities

The phrase "good salary" only means something relative to where you spend it. National salary averages mislead because they ignore the geographic variance in what those dollars buy. In 2026, the median U.S. household income is roughly $80,000 — but that figure represents wildly different lifestyles depending on whether the household lives in San Francisco (where it's poverty-line for a family of 4) or Tulsa (where it's solidly middle class).

To evaluate any salary offer or relocation, you need three numbers:

1. Take-home pay. What lands in your bank account after federal income tax (10-37% marginal), FICA (7.65%), and state income tax (0-13.3% depending on state). Two people earning $100,000 — one in Texas, one in California — see take-home pay differ by roughly $9,000 per year due to state tax alone.

2. Cost-of-living index. A composite measure of how expensive groceries, housing, transportation, healthcare, and utilities are in a city, normalized to a U.S. average of 1.00. San Francisco runs about 1.95 (95% above average); Memphis runs about 0.88 (12% below). Dividing your take-home pay by this index gives "purchasing power" — what your money actually buys.

3. Rent burden. Monthly rent as a percentage of monthly take-home pay. The traditional "30% rule" says rent shouldn't exceed 30% of gross income; many financial planners now use 30% of NET (take-home) income as the better threshold. At $100K in San Francisco with $3,200 rent, that's 58% of take-home — financially crushing. Same income in Memphis with $1,000 rent is 16% of take-home — leaves room for serious saving.

The interactive explorer above shows all three for every salary level you select. The "purchasing power" number is the one that matters most for cross-city comparisons — it tells you what your salary effectively buys, not what it nominally pays.

The U.S. has a stark divide in state income taxation. Nine states levy no state income tax on wages: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. (New Hampshire and Washington tax certain investment income but not wages; the rest are fully tax-free on earned income.)

At the other extreme, California's top marginal rate hits 13.3% for high earners. New York's effective rate exceeds 10% for many filers when combined with NYC's local income tax of 3.876%. New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, and Minnesota also impose effective rates above 9% in higher income tiers.

The arithmetic is straightforward: a $100,000 salary in Dallas keeps roughly $75,350 in take-home pay. The same salary in San Francisco keeps about $66,050. That's a $9,300 annual gap — every year, for as long as you live there.

What state taxes actually fund:

• K-12 public education (typically 35-50% of state budgets)
• Medicaid and public health programs
• State transportation and infrastructure
• State police and corrections
• Public university systems

States without income taxes generally make up the revenue elsewhere — Texas runs higher property taxes, Tennessee has an above-average sales tax, Florida relies heavily on tourism taxes. The total tax burden isn't always lower in no-income-tax states, but the income-tax-specific savings are real.

The "remote work tax" wrinkle: if you live in one state and your employer is in another, state tax rules can get complicated. Most states tax based on where you physically perform the work. A few states (the most aggressive being New York) use the "convenience of the employer" rule — if you work remotely for a New York employer for your own convenience rather than employer necessity, you may owe New York income tax even if you live in Florida. This is one reason remote workers often relocate to no-tax states fully, including changing voter registration and driver's license to establish domicile.

Most cost-of-living indices used by salary comparison tools are based on the Council for Community and Economic Research (C2ER) methodology — the same source SmartAsset, NerdWallet, and Indeed pull from. The index is computed quarterly across roughly 270 metro areas in the U.S.

The components and approximate weights:

• Housing (~28%) — apartment rent and home purchase prices. The single biggest driver of geographic variance. Coastal cities and tech hubs see housing 50-150% above national average; Rust Belt cities run 20-40% below.
• Groceries (~13%) — basket of common food items. Less variable than housing; even expensive cities only run 10-30% above average for groceries.
• Utilities (~9%) — electricity, natural gas, water. Heavily affected by climate and energy generation mix. Hawaii (imported energy) runs 80%+ above average; Pacific Northwest (hydro) runs below.
• Transportation (~10%) — gas, vehicle ownership costs, public transit. Includes the gas tax differences between states.
• Healthcare (~5%) — typical doctor visit, prescription drugs. Less variable than other categories nationally.
• Goods and services (~35%) — restaurants, entertainment, clothing, services. Most "lifestyle" expenses.

The composite index multiplies all of these together with their weights. The result is approximate. A San Francisco index of 1.95 means the typical urban household lifestyle costs 95% more than the national median. But for a specific household, the actual cost differential might be very different.

Where the published indices mislead:

Renters vs owners. Indices use a 60% rent / 40% own weighting. If you own a home outright (no mortgage, no rent), housing costs are property tax + maintenance — a much smaller percentage of your budget. The published index over-weights housing for you.

Drivers vs transit users. The transportation component assumes a typical driver. A New York or DC resident who doesn't own a car has dramatically lower transportation costs than the index suggests.

Healthcare consumers vs non-consumers. If you have employer health insurance and rarely use it, the healthcare differential is mostly invisible to you. If you have chronic conditions or a family with frequent medical needs, geographic variation in healthcare costs hits much harder.

Children vs no children. Childcare costs vary enormously across cities — a daycare slot that costs $1,200/month in Memphis can run $3,000/month in San Francisco. A two-child family pays significantly more for that geographic difference than the published index suggests.

Bottom line: published indices are starting points, not precise answers. To evaluate a specific city for your specific situation, build a line-item budget reflecting your actual spending categories and weights.

The 30% rule is one of the most widely cited financial guidelines, but it's also one of the most misapplied. Here's what most people miss:

The original rule was 30% of GROSS income. This made sense in 1969 when:

• Median rents were ~22% of household income (so 30% had headroom)
• Federal income taxes for median earners were ~14% (vs 22%+ today)
• Healthcare and student debt were minor budget items
• Two-earner households were less common (single earner had less competing demands)

The modern reality is harsher. A $100,000 gross income in 2026 yields roughly $66,000-$75,000 take-home depending on state. If you spend 30% of GROSS on rent, that's $30,000/year — which represents 40-45% of your actual take-home pay. After rent, food, transportation, healthcare, and retirement savings, there's nothing left.

This is why most modern financial planners now advise: rent should be no more than 30% of NET (take-home) pay. On $100K take-home of $70K, that's $1,750/month maximum.

Rent burden by salary level (using $70K take-home / $100K gross):

HUD officially defines "rent burden" as paying more than 30% of household income for rent, and "severe rent burden" as more than 50%. Roughly 50% of U.S. renter households are rent burdened; 25% are severely burdened. The gap between these statistics and the "30% rule" is the gap between aspiration and reality.

What to actually budget for:

• Rent: 25-30% of take-home (the comfortable zone)
• Utilities: 5-7% of take-home
• Groceries: 10-15% of take-home
• Transportation: 10-15% of take-home
• Healthcare: 5-10% of take-home
• Savings/investments: 15-20% of take-home (this is the variable that gets squeezed when rent is too high)
• Discretionary: whatever remains

If your rent forces savings below 10% of take-home, you're effectively trading retirement security for current housing. This is the trade-off most people in expensive coastal cities are making, often without realizing it.

The nine states with no broad income tax on wages, ranked by population:

1. Texas — 30M+ residents. High property taxes (1.6-2.5% of home value), 8.25% combined sales tax in metros
2. Florida — 22M+ residents. Moderate property tax, 6-7.5% sales tax, heavy reliance on tourism revenue
3. Washington — 7M+ residents. No tax on wages, 7% capital gains tax (over $250K), high sales tax (10.4% in Seattle)
4. Tennessee — 7M residents. Among the highest sales taxes in the U.S. (9.55% combined average)
5. Nevada — 3M residents. Heavy gaming revenue, 8.375% sales tax in Las Vegas
6. Alaska — 730K residents. Oil revenue funds state; residents receive annual Permanent Fund Dividend ($1,300+/year)
7. South Dakota — 920K residents. Low property tax, 6.4% combined sales tax
8. New Hampshire — 1.4M residents. Taxes interest/dividends only (5%, phasing out by 2027)
9. Wyoming — 580K residents. Heavy mineral revenue, 5.4% combined sales tax (one of the lowest)

The math of relocation for tax savings: on a $150,000 salary, moving from California to Texas saves approximately $14,000-$18,000 per year in state income tax (depending on filing status and deductions). Over a 30-year career, that's $420,000-$540,000 in pre-investment savings — or potentially $1.5M+ if invested at market returns.

What you give up moving from a high-tax to a no-tax state:

• Public services intensity. California spends roughly $14,000 per K-12 student vs $11,000 in Texas. State universities, public transit, parks, and social safety nets tend to be more comprehensive in higher-tax states.
• Higher property tax in some. Texas property taxes are roughly double California's effective rate, partially offsetting income tax savings for homeowners. A $500K home in Texas costs $8,000-$12,000/year in property tax vs $3,500-$5,000 in California (despite similar effective rates, Cali Prop 13 caps property tax growth).
• Higher sales tax. Tennessee, Nevada, Texas all run 8-10% combined sales tax. For someone spending $40K/year on taxable goods, that's $3,200-$4,000/year — eats into income tax savings.
• Geographic preferences. The no-tax states cluster geographically (South + Mountain West + Alaska). If you have strong family/career/lifestyle ties to a specific high-tax state, the tax savings may not justify the move.

The "remote worker" path: with widespread remote work, more workers can choose where they live independently of where they work. Establishing genuine domicile in a no-tax state requires:

• Physical residence (lease or owned home)
• Driver's license and voter registration in the new state
• Spending more than 183 days/year in the state
• Severing ties with the old state (selling property, changing professional licenses)
• Updating estate documents and beneficiary designations

States like California and New York aggressively audit former residents who claim to have moved to no-tax states but maintain ongoing connections. Establishing clean domicile is the difference between actual tax savings and a costly tax audit.

The basic geographic arbitrage trade is simple: earn at coastal-tier salaries, spend at mid-American costs. A software engineer earning $200,000 from a San Francisco employer while living in Austin captures roughly $30,000/year in tax savings (no California income tax on wages) plus $25,000-$40,000/year in cost-of-living savings (rent, food, services).

Effective gain: $55,000-$70,000 per year of additional disposable income — equivalent to a 30-35% raise just from changing zip codes.

How state taxation actually works for remote workers:

Most states tax based on where the work is physically performed, not where the employer is located. So a Texas resident working from home for a New York employer typically owes Texas state tax (which is $0) on that income, not New York state tax.

The "convenience of the employer" rule: seven states (Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania) apply a more aggressive rule. If you work remotely for an employer in one of these states, AND the remote work is for your convenience rather than the employer's necessity, you may owe income tax to the employer's state regardless of where you physically work.

New York is the most aggressive enforcer. Their position: if your employer maintains an office where you could work, and you choose to work remotely for personal reasons, you owe New York income tax on that income. This rule has been challenged in court but has generally survived.

The "183-day rule": most states consider you a tax resident if you spend more than half the year there. A remote worker who spends 6+ months/year in California may owe California income tax on income earned during that period, even if their primary residence is elsewhere.

Practical implications for remote workers:

• If your employer is in a "convenience rule" state, your tax savings from relocating may be smaller than expected
• Track days spent in each state — many tax issues arise from accidentally crossing the 183-day threshold
• Some companies restrict which states they'll allow you to work from due to multistate tax/employment law complexity
• Consider the implications of employer location, not just your residence, when negotiating remote arrangements

The "geographic arbitrage" cities — places that have emerged as primary destinations for high-earning remote workers:

• Austin, TX — tech ecosystem + no state tax + young professional culture
• Nashville, TN — no income tax + low cost + cultural amenities
• Miami, FL — no income tax + finance/crypto magnet + international airport
• Boise, ID — moderate tax (5.7%) + low housing cost + outdoor lifestyle
• Salt Lake City, UT — moderate tax (4.85%) + tech ecosystem + outdoor access
• Denver, CO — moderate tax (4.4%) + tech + lifestyle (rents have risen sharply)
• Charlotte, NC — moderate tax (4.5%) + finance + low cost
• Tampa, FL — no income tax + low cost + growing tech presence

The decision tree for "should I move for the money?":

Stay and negotiate if:

• Your current city has strong professional networks in your field that would take 3-5+ years to rebuild elsewhere
• Your spouse/partner has a geographically-tied job (medicine, law, real estate) where they'd need to re-license or rebuild client base
• You're within 5 years of meaningful equity vesting at your current employer
• Children are in established schools or specific support programs
• Family caregiving needs (aging parents, disabled siblings) create geographic constraints
• Your housing situation (locked-in low mortgage rate, rent control) creates favorable economics that disappear with relocation

Relocate if:

• You can negotiate REMOTE work from your current employer (best of both worlds)
• The math heavily favors the new city ($50K+/year improvement in real terms)
• You're early career and building location-flexible skills
• Your current city's housing has become unaffordable relative to your income trajectory
• The new city has a stronger industry presence in your field
• You're a remote-only worker with full employer flexibility

What "negotiating harder" actually looks like:

• Cost-of-living-adjusted promotion targets: if your job ladder targets $130K for a senior role nationally, expect 15-25% premium for a high-cost city. SF/NYC senior engineers should target $150K+ where Memphis/Birmingham peers target $115K.
• Remote work as a benefit: negotiating 2-3 days/week remote, then gradually expanding, can create geographic flexibility without changing employers.
• Equity tilting: for tech workers, equity grants can be more valuable than base salary. Negotiating refresher grants tied to tenure milestones often yields more lifetime compensation than salary increases.
• Specialization premiums: rare specialties (security clearances, niche programming languages, specific regulatory expertise) command premiums independent of geography. Sometimes "good salary" is more about positioning than location.

The total cost of relocation:

• Moving expenses: $5,000-$15,000 for a typical interstate move
• Apartment/home buying costs: 5-10% of price (closing, agent fees, inspections)
• Lost work productivity during transition: 2-6 weeks at full salary
• Spouse career disruption: 3-12 months to rebuild
• Network reset: 2-3 years to rebuild professional connections
• Tax disruption: state tax in two states for partial year
• Selling old home: 6-10% transaction cost if you owned

For someone making $100K, the combined first-year relocation cost can easily reach $30,000-$60,000. This payback period — typically 2-4 years — is something to factor in alongside the long-term annual savings.

Use case 1: "Is my salary good?"

• Use the explorer above and select your current salary level
• Find your city in the grid — note the purchasing power number
• Compare to other cities at the same salary — if your city has notably lower purchasing power, you may be underpaid for your geographic context
• For a deeper personalized analysis, click your city card to load a full breakdown

Use case 2: "I'm getting a job offer in [city] — is it competitive?"

• Find your current city's purchasing power for your current salary
• Find the offer city — work backward from your current purchasing power to find the equivalent salary needed
• Compare to the offer: if the offer is meaningfully above the equivalent number, the move increases your real income; if it's below, you'd be taking a real-terms pay cut despite the higher nominal salary
• Use the side-by-side comparison tool to see all metrics at once

Use case 3: "What salary would I need to maintain my lifestyle in [new city]?"

• Identify your current take-home pay in your current city
• Calculate the cost-of-living ratio between your current city and the destination
• Multiply your current take-home by that ratio to get the equivalent take-home needed
• Add taxes back to estimate the gross salary that would produce that take-home in the new state

Use case 4: "Help me find cities matching specific criteria"

• Use the rankings tables below to identify cities meeting your priorities (lowest rent, highest take-home, no state tax, etc.)
• For each promising city, click through to its detailed page for the full take-home + budget breakdown at your specific salary level
• Use the comparison tool to evaluate your top 2-3 candidates side-by-side

Limitations of this analysis:

• Cost-of-living indices are city-wide averages and don't reflect your specific lifestyle
• Rent figures are approximate medians for urban one-bedroom apartments
• State tax estimates use simplified calculations — actual tax depends on filing status, deductions, and credits
• Cities have internal cost variation (downtown vs suburbs vs exurbs)
• Property tax and sales tax differences are NOT captured in these comparisons
• Job availability and career trajectory implications are city-specific

For decisions involving actual relocation, supplement this analysis with:

• Detailed budget projection using actual rental listings in target neighborhoods
• Tax projection from a CPA familiar with both states
• Industry research on job market depth in your target field
• Visits to candidate cities for at least a week before deciding