The ACT will be the second hardest hit state or territory in the country as it has the second highest percentage of residents earning over $180,000, the threshold for the new temporary tax.

In an opinion article published in the Sunday Canberra Times, ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher also warns that the territory will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the savage job cuts contained in the budget.

But one Canberran who earns above the threshold said he was happy to pay the levy, adding it was important that everyone did their bit to get the budget back in the black.

The Abbott government introduced the deficit tax in Tuesday's budget, which will raise money by imposing a 2 per cent levy on Australians earning more than $180,000 a year.

Based on Australian Taxation Office statistics from 2011-12, 6075 Canberrans earned above the threshold, with 65 ACT residents making more than $1 million in that year.

Western Australia had the largest percentage of high-income earners, with 2 per cent of the population earning over the threshold compared with 1.6 per cent of the ACT's population.

As the 2 per cent tax rate kicks in only on earnings above $180,000, the federal government can expect to raise at least $6 million in extra tax a year from Canberrans with its new deficit levy.

Deakin resident Rod Sutherland, who earns about the income threshold for the new levy, said he was happy to contribute, as everyone needed to share the pain in Tuesday's budget.

"The wealthy need to do some of the lifting," Mr Sutherland said. "I don't mind paying the levy if in three years time it'll get us closer to a surplus. I think it's a good exercise."

Mr Sutherland said it would not affect his family's spending habits and anyone who was earning more than $180,000 should not notice the new tax's impact much.

"If you do, you need some serious financial management," he said.

"Of those I work with in the private sector we're all in the same boat. I don't know anyone who thinks it's an onerous thing. They're all realistic and the government's doing as much as they can.

"Could we have paid more? Yeah, but it's a fine line ... 2 per cent makes the numbers work."

The majority of Canberra's SES-level public servants - about 1350 in the federal service and at least 100 under the ACT government - will be affected by the new tax.

The median salary for the band one SES-level workers over the past year was $184,000.

This is in addition to the sacking of a projected 16,500 public servants in Tuesday's budget, the shutdown of numerous agencies, the introduction of GP co-payments and cuts to welfare.

But ACT business groups and tax experts said they doubted the increased tax burden on high-income earners would have a noticable effect on Canberra's economy.

University of Melbourne professor of economics Dr John Freebairn said it was debatable whether the deficit tax would seriously affect wealthy Australians in any way.

"There are real questions about whether the extra tax cut on people with that high an income is really going to change their expenditure decisions much," Dr Freebairn said.

"People will take most of that extra tax as a drop in savings rather than a drop in what they spend on clothing, restaurants, education for their kids and so on."

Canberra Business Council chief executive Chris Faulks said that, given the size of the deficit tax, she did not believe it would have a substantial impact on the ACT economy.

"It's a proportionate thing - when you have the advantage of having more high-income earners then you'd expect to have to pay more," she said.

"I don't think at that level it will have much of an effect. If you look at the measures in the budget, individual people will be in favour of or against them, but overall I don't think [the tax] will damage business confidence by itself."

ANU Arndt-Corden department of economics fellow Dr Paul Burke said that, although there may be minimal effects on the ACT, low-income earners had been disproportionately hit harder by the budget.

"This is one step to make sure high-income earners will make some contribution as well, but definitely low-income earners are the worst off from these changes," he said.

"And the changes affecting low-income earners are permanent, this [levy] is temporary."

Dr Burke said the economy would have been better off without the government using temporary instruments, but it would only be a small change and would not affect most of the population.

"For most people this is not an issue, unfortunately, because our incomes aren't even at that threshold," he said.