United Airlines CEO calls for national wealth tax and near-100% inheritance tax, despite $32 million pay

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby is calling for a national wealth tax and inheritance taxes that could approach 100% at the highest levels, arguing that the growing divide between wealthy Americans and everyone else threatens the country’s social stability. His proposal is drawing attention not only because of its sweeping tax implications but also because Kirby earned $32.28 million in 2025.

“Wealth inequality has become a danger to our society, and we need to address that,” Kirby said in a recent interview with The New York Times. He also argued that a state-by-state approach would not work because wealthy people could relocate to avoid higher taxes.

Kirby’s comments have ignited a political backlash from some politicians and commentators, who have questioned whether a highly compensated corporate executive should be lecturing Americans about inequality. At the same time, his remarks are adding momentum to a national debate over billionaire wealth, inheritance, CEO compensation and whether the tax system asks enough of the country’s richest households.

Kirby says wealth inequality threatens American society

Kirby made his comments in an interview with The New York Times published October 18, responding to questions about declining public trust in corporate executives and whether CEOs have a responsibility to address that distrust.

“We should have a national wealth tax — it won’t work by state because people will just move. And I think we should have inheritance taxes that get close to 100% at some level. I would pay them.”

The United Airlines chief executive’s proposal goes beyond simply increasing income taxes on high earners. A wealth tax generally targets a person’s accumulated assets, potentially including investments and other holdings, while an inheritance tax targets wealth received by heirs. The two taxes address different parts of the wealth accumulation process.

Kirby did not specify a wealth-tax rate, the level of assets that would trigger the tax or the inheritance thresholds at which rates could approach 100%. His remarks therefore represent a broad policy position rather than a detailed legislative proposal.

Kirby’s $32 million compensation highlights the pay gap

Kirby’s compensation is central to the controversy. According to United Airlines’ 2026 proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, he received $32.28 million in total compensation for 2025, approximately 334 times the company’s median employee compensation of $96,670.

His package included $1.2 million in base salary, $22.6 million in stock awards, $8 million in incentive compensation and roughly $500,000 in other compensation. Stock awards accounted for the largest share of the package, meaning his compensation was not simply a matter of salary.

The disparity has fueled criticism from those who argue that executives who earn hundreds of times more than typical employees are poorly positioned to lecture the public about inequality. Others contend that Kirby’s willingness to advocate higher taxes on people in his own income bracket lends credibility to his position, even if critics disagree with his proposed solution.

Critics accuse Kirby of hypocrisy

Kirby’s remarks quickly drew criticism from politicians and commentators, who questioned why a CEO earning tens of millions of dollars would call for substantially higher taxes on the wealthy.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry criticized Kirby on X, writing: “How audacious from a guy that didn’t even build @united and makes $32 million a year.

If he feels that strongly he could simply cut a check here: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/financing/gifts-to-government Let’s see you step up and place your money where your mouth is!

“Better yet, he should distribute his salary to the employees at the bottom of the ladder @united” Landry added.

Former Fox News host Glenn Beck posted on X, “How great that the CEO of @united the airline that i will now never fly would pay the 100% wealth/inheritance tax. So good of him. He does realize that he can simply give 100% of his money away without the government and the money would actually help more people right? I am not leaving my kids anything, which is my choice, but don’t tell me that the government will take it. Who do you think you are? Hey Chairman Mao, i mean Kirby, do you think the government knows how to ‘share your money’ better than you? Why not just have the government run your airline too?”

The criticism raises a broader question: should wealthy executives be judged primarily on their personal fortunes when advocating tax changes, or on the substance of the policies they support? Kirby has said he would pay the taxes he is proposing, but he has not outlined a specific plan that would allow the public to calculate how much more he or other executives would owe.

What a national wealth tax would mean

A wealth tax differs from the federal income tax most Americans pay. Income taxes apply to money earned through wages, business income and other taxable sources. A wealth tax generally applies to the value of assets a person owns, minus applicable liabilities.

Depending on how legislation is designed, those assets could include stocks, bonds, real estate and ownership stakes in businesses. A proposal would need to establish which assets are covered, how they are valued, what debts can be deducted and whether the tax applies annually or on another schedule.

Kirby has not specified the rate or threshold for his proposed tax. It is therefore too early to estimate how much revenue it could raise or how much particular individuals would pay.

His preference for a federal system reflects a concern that wealthy taxpayers could move to states with lower taxes. A nationwide tax could reduce the incentive to relocate within the U.S. to escape a state-level levy, although it would not eliminate every opportunity to change tax residency or reorganize assets.

Supporters of wealth taxes argue that they could raise revenue from accumulated fortunes that may not generate taxable income at the same rate as wages. Opponents question how governments would value illiquid assets, enforce compliance and avoid discouraging investment. Those issues would be central to any federal legislation.

The U.S. already taxes large estates, but not at Kirby’s proposed levels

Kirby’s call for inheritance taxes approaching 100% at some level would represent a substantial departure from the current federal system.

The U.S. generally imposes a federal estate tax on the estate of a deceased person, rather than a separate federal inheritance tax on the people receiving the money. For deaths in 2026, the basic federal estate-tax exclusion is $15 million per person. The top marginal estate-tax rate is 40%, meaning the taxable portion of an estate above the applicable exclusion can face that rate, subject to the tax rules and available deductions or credits.

For example, an estate worth $20 million would not automatically owe estate tax on the entire $20 million. The taxable amount depends on the applicable exclusion, adjusted taxable gifts, deductions and other factors.

Kirby did not explain what he meant by inheritance taxes approaching 100% “at some level.” Such a rate could be directed at exceptionally large inheritances rather than every dollar passed down by a wealthy family. Without thresholds, exemptions and a defined tax structure, however, the actual effect of his proposal remains unclear.

Supporters of higher inheritance taxes argue that large fortunes passed between generations can entrench economic advantages unrelated to work or individual achievement. Critics counter that the assets may already have been subject to income, capital-gains or other taxes and that steep additional levies could affect family businesses and other assets that are difficult to divide or sell.

Federal Reserve data show a stark wealth divide

The wealth gap Kirby highlighted is measurable in Federal Reserve data. The central bank’s Distributional Financial Accounts track household wealth across different segments of the U.S. population.

In the second quarter of 2026, the wealthiest 1% of households held approximately $60.32 trillion in wealth, combining the top 0.1% and the next 0.9%. The bottom 50% held approximately $4.28 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve’s distributional figures.

Those totals illustrate how dramatically wealth is concentrated at the top. They also help explain why proposals to tax accumulated assets have become part of the political debate, particularly as households contend with housing costs, healthcare expenses and other affordability pressures.

However, the figures do not by themselves establish which tax policy would be most effective. A wealth tax’s impact would depend on its design, while other approaches could include changing capital-gains rules, raising estate taxes, adjusting income-tax rates or expanding policies intended to increase wages and household savings.

The distinction matters because wealth and income are not interchangeable. A household can own valuable assets without receiving a large amount of annual cash income, while another household can earn a high salary without having accumulated significant net worth.

California’s billionaire tax debate adds urgency to the issue

Kirby’s comments arrive as California’s proposed billionaire tax has brought wealth taxation into the national political spotlight. The state measure, known as Proposition 40 in the current debate, proposes a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ wealth, with supporters estimating it could generate as much as $100 billion over five years.

The proposal has prompted a fierce dispute over how to fund public services without driving wealthy residents, businesses or investment elsewhere. Opponents have warned of potential departures by billionaires and the economic consequences that could follow, while supporters argue that the state’s wealthiest residents can afford to contribute more toward healthcare and other public needs.

Kirby’s argument that a wealth tax should be national rather than state-based directly touches on one of the central concerns surrounding state-level measures: whether high-net-worth individuals can change their residency to avoid a tax.

A federal tax would address the issue differently because moving from California to another state would not remove a taxpayer from the federal system. Even so, a national tax could raise separate questions about capital movement, asset valuation, enforcement and how it would interact with state taxes.

The California debate also illustrates that support for taxing billionaires is not necessarily the same as support for every proposed tax. The rate, timing, exemptions and intended uses of the revenue can all affect whether voters and policymakers consider a particular measure workable.

Kirby joins other wealthy business leaders calling for higher taxes

Kirby is not the only prominent business leader to express support for raising taxes on wealthy Americans. Fortune noted that Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff have also publicly supported higher taxes on the rich.

These positions stand out because they come from people who have benefited substantially from the existing economic system. Their arguments differ, however, and support for higher taxes does not necessarily mean support for a broad annual wealth tax or inheritance-tax rates approaching 100%.

Some business leaders have focused on increasing income taxes on high earners, while others have emphasized capital gains, estate taxes or broader efforts to reduce poverty. The details matter: different approaches affect different taxpayers and can produce different economic incentives.

Kirby’s proposal is particularly notable because he explicitly favors both a national wealth tax and much higher inheritance taxes. His willingness to pay them makes his position more than a general appeal for other wealthy Americans to contribute more, but the lack of a detailed plan leaves major policy questions unanswered.

What happens next for the national wealth-tax debate

Kirby’s comments have not yet produced a specific legislative proposal, and he has not supplied the tax rates, asset thresholds or inheritance limits needed to assess the full consequences of his ideas. Any federal wealth-tax plan would require lawmakers to resolve those questions and consider how the tax would interact with existing federal and state rules.

The political debate is likely to center on several competing concerns: whether taxing large fortunes would reduce inequality and raise meaningful revenue, whether wealthy households could avoid or minimize the tax, and whether the policy would discourage investment or complicate the transfer of family-owned businesses.

Kirby’s argument is straightforward: wealth inequality has become a threat to society, and the country should address it through national taxation rather than relying on individual states. His critics have responded by questioning both the fairness of the proposal and the credibility of an executive whose annual compensation exceeds $32 million.

Ultimately, the debate will turn on more than whether wealthy Americans should pay higher taxes. It will require policymakers to determine which forms of wealth should be taxed, at what levels, and how to balance revenue needs and economic opportunity.

Kirby has put himself squarely on one side of that debate, as several lawmakers are using wealth and inheritance tax for their midterm campaigns.

Like Financial Freedom Countdown content? Be sure to follow us!

14 essential strategies to maximize your Social Security and avoid costly mistakes

Social Security is a vital lifeline for many seniors, providing crucial income support during retirement. With inflation at its highest in four decades, Social Security’s inflation-adjusted benefits offer protection against rising costs.

Rising interest rates have disrupted many retirement portfolios, causing bond fund values to plummet. In this volatile financial landscape, Social Security can stabilize a typical stock-bond retirement portfolio. By implementing smart strategies, retirees can maximize their Social Security benefits and ensure a more secure financial future.

14 Essential Strategies to Maximize Your Social Security and Avoid Costly Mistakes

11 reasons you should claim Social Security early

Deciding when to claim Social Security is often about maximizing your benefit. Financial planners usually advise delaying your claim for as long as possible to secure the highest monthly payment. Your benefit is based on your lifetime earnings, with a full payout available at your full retirement age (FRA), which is currently between 66 and 67 depending on your birth year. Claiming before FRA results in a permanent reduction in your monthly benefit, while waiting beyond FRA leads to a permanent increase. However, the decision isn’t solely about maximizing the monthly check. Personal factors such as health, family circumstances, and financial needs can play a significant role in determining the right time to claim.

11 Reasons You Should Claim Social Security Early

Please take a moment to follow and share

Did you find this article helpful? We’d love to hear your thoughts! Leave a comment with the box on the left-hand side of the screen and share your thoughts.

Also, do you want to stay up-to-date on our latest content?

1. Follow us by clicking the [+ Follow] button above,

2. Give the article a Thumbs Up on the top-left side of the screen.

3. And lastly, if you think this information would benefit your friends and family, don’t hesitate to share it with them!