No, it's not unreasonable for high earners to complain about taxes, and the confusion arises from overlooking key realities of the UK's tax system and public services.
High earners (often defined as £50k+ for higher-rate tax, or £100k+ for traps like the 60% effective marginal rate) contribute disproportionately— the top 10% pay around 60% of income tax—yet many report receiving poor value in return, such as long NHS waits, delayed ambulances, or inadequate GP access, forcing them to go private despite their contributions.
Their grievances typically centre on waste, mismanagement, and disincentives (e.g., doctors limiting hours or entrepreneurs slowing growth to avoid tax cliffs), rather than taxes existing at all.
While it's true that much private income ultimately cycles through public spending and societal infrastructure, this interdependence doesn't negate the frustration when the "social contract" feels one-sided: high contributors subsidize broad services but see declining quality and personal penalties for success.
Your point about wealth originating from "normal people paying for things" has merit—profits and salaries often trace back to collective demand, consumer purchases, or taxpayer-funded ecosystems—but it oversimplifies value creation and risk.
Many high earners take on significant stress, long hours, or entrepreneurial risks (e.g., potential bankruptcy) to generate jobs and growth that benefit society, including lower earners.
Dismissing this as a "rigged game" ignores that market pay reflects supply/demand, skill scarcity, and voluntary exchanges, not just extraction. In a healthy system, progressive taxes are fair for redistribution and public goods, but when services falter and marginal rates punish extra effort, complaints are valid across income levels—not just envy or entitlement.
Ultimately, the real issue is systemic inefficiency, not high earners' right to voice dissatisfaction with how their substantial taxes are spent.