‘It’s just a question of fairness’: United CEO doubles wealth tax despite his $32 million salary

In an extensive interview with The New York Times In mid-October, Kirby said wealth inequality “has become a danger to our society” and called for a national wealth tax, as well as an inheritance tax that “approaches 100% at some level.” “I would pay them,” he added.

The remarks sparked a swift reaction, most aimed at his salary. Fox Business asked United how Kirby compared his salary with his warnings about inequality; the company did not respond.

Kirby doubled his stake a few days later on CNBC scream box, frame the idea as a question of fairness.

“I think a wealth tax…is just a matter of fairness…If you’re wealthy enough, you can put money aside, and by the way, I think this would apply to me, put some money away, let it grow forever, never realize any income, you can let it grow forever and it’s never taxed,” he said.

This is the gap Kirby wants to close. The federal system taxes income: in 2025, the top rate of 37% applied to single filers’ taxable income above $626,350, according to the IRS. Investments that increase in value but are never sold are not taxed.

Kirby’s point of view is distinguished by who advocates it. He runs a Fortune 500 company in 2026 that generated $59.1 billion in revenue last year.

He stressed that these were personal opinions and that he was not interested in politics or policymaking. If it were up to him, he said, he would prefer a system “in which we had lower income taxes and higher taxes, or some kind of tax, on wealth gains.”

The arguments against wealth taxation

In practice, this idea gives rise to strong objections. Mariana Trujillo, general director of public finance at the Reason Foundation, a libertarian-leaning think tank, says Fortune it would harm the very growth it is meant to share.

“Taxing accumulated wealth discourages investment and entrepreneurship – the same forces that made our lives better than those of our grandparents and great-grandparents. Economic progress, not the state, has driven the improvement in our material condition. A wealth tax discourages precisely what it aims to promote,” she says.

Trujillo draws a clear line between the two ideas put forward by Kirby. An inheritance tax only hits wealth once, when it changes hands. A wealth tax is imposed there every year, and she argues that this gives the richest Americans, and their capital, a reason to leave.

“An annual wealth tax is entirely different from an inheritance tax… People leave states and countries for tax reasons. National wealth taxes have failed in Europe, where countries like France, Sweden and Germany have abandoned them due to concerns about capital flight, administrative costs and disappointing revenues.”

A few European countries have stood their ground: Norway, Spain and Switzerland still levy taxes on net worth, according to the Tax Foundation.

Trujillo also had a message for Kirby himself. “If Kirby believes his wealth could be better used to improve the lives of others, he is free to use it for that purpose,” she said. “But I hope he recognizes that his compensation reflects the perceived value of his contributions to his company and, therefore, to society as a whole. Wealth does not need to be redistributed to be productive; it is already the result of creating value for others.”

California voters reject tax on billionaires

Kirby argued that a state-by-state approach is doomed to failure. “We should have a national wealth tax; it won’t work by state because people will just move,” he told Parliament. Timesas Fortune reported.

California has just tested a national version. In the Nov. 3 election, voters rejected Proposition 40, the so-called billionaires tax, which would have imposed a one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of state residents worth more than $1 billion. The Associated Press called the race for Nov. 9, with 52.8 percent of voters opposed, according to CalMatters.

The measure had high-profile backers, including six Nobel Prize-winning economists, who said it could jump-start similar efforts elsewhere. But opponents spent about $378 million against the plan, while the yes campaign raised $33.5 million, and Silicon Valley voters objected even as Los Angeles and San Francisco voted yes.

Trujillo sees the result as a verdict on the idea itself. “California’s wealth tax proposal failed at the ballot box for good reasons: first, because voters recognized that it could reduce government revenue as people left, and second, because they saw it as discouraging investment and innovation, which improve our lives.”

Kirby says the emails he received about his comments were evenly split for and against. If California is anything to go by, the rest of the country isn’t far away.