United Airlines CEO Calls for New Taxes on Wealth and Inheritances: What That Would Mean for Your Money
Scott Kirby's comments on a national wealth tax and a near-100% inheritance tax come as states debate new taxes on the wealthy.
As many people in the U.S. are dealing with high prices for everyday expenses, the growing gap between wealthy households and everyone else is a topic of debate. Now, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby is weighing in, calling for a national wealth tax and inheritance taxes that could approach 100% for some.
In an interview with The New York Times published October 18, Kirby was asked about declining public trust in corporate executives. He responded:
"Wealth inequality has become a danger to our society, and we need to address that. 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 percent at some level. I would pay them."
From just $107.88 $24.99 for Kiplinger Personal Finance
Become a smarter, better informed investor. Subscribe from just $107.88 $24.99, plus get up to 4 Special Issues
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more - straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice - straight to your e-mail.
Kirby, who is reportedly worth over $125 million, didn't offer a detailed plan for how new taxes would work. But his comments raise interesting questions about tax fairness in the United States.
The Center for American Progress reports that the wealth gap is the widest it's been in 30 years, with the top 1% holding nearly 32% of the nation's total wealth (roughly $55 trillion in assets). Meanwhile, the bottom 50% holds only about 2.5% of U.S. wealth.
To better understand what a national wealth tax could mean, it helps to look at what the U.S. tax system currently does and doesn't tax.
Types of income the IRS taxes
In the U.S., many types of income are taxable, including wages and certain investment gains. But the IRS generally doesn't tax accumulated wealth.
- For example, if someone's stock portfolio increases in value, they generally don't owe capital gains tax on those gains until they sell the investments, though other tax rules may apply.
- A national wealth tax, if ever approved, would require people to pay tax on the value of their assets even if they hadn't sold anything or received additional income.
However, the U.S. government can tax some wealth transferred after death. When applicable, the estate, not the heir, generally pays the federal estate tax, which tops out at 40%. But because the exclusion is so high, many estates owe no federal estate tax.
For people who die in 2026, the federal lifetime estate tax exemption is $15 million per person ($30 million for couples).
Also worth noting: Some states have their own estate taxes, with different rules and exemptions. For instance, five states — Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania — tax certain inheritances.
The takeaway? Under current federal law, inheriting money doesn't automatically mean owing federal income tax or inheritance tax. The outcome depends on the asset type, the estate's circumstances, and the state involved.
What would a wealth tax change?
A wealth tax would generally target a person's net worth — generally, the value of their assets minus their debts at a given time — rather than the income they earn in a year.
Imagine someone owns $50 million in investments and other assets and has $5 million in debt. Their net worth would be $45 million. Under a hypothetical wealth tax on net worth above $20 million, some of that wealth could be subject to tax even if the person earned relatively little income that year.
Of course, the details would matter. Lawmakers would need to decide which assets count, how to value them, what threshold triggers the tax, and how often to collect it. Valuing private businesses, art, and other assets that don't trade on public markets could be especially complicated.
Interestingly, and as Kiplinger has reported, California voters will weigh in on similar questions this November.
- Proposition 40, on the November 3 midterm elections ballot, would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on certain covered assets held by billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026.
- Covered assets would include businesses, securities, art, and intellectual property.
- Real estate, pensions, and some retirement accounts would generally be excluded.
Advocates say the measure is intended to raise money primarily for healthcare, with additional funding for education and food assistance. Estimates suggest it could generate tens of billions of dollars in temporary revenue over several years.
Opponents argue that the billionaire's tax could drive wealthy residents away and weaken state finances over time. A state analysis estimates that tax flight could reduce annual income tax revenue from billionaires by less than $1 billion.
The California proposal is a one-time state tax aimed at billionaires, not a recurring "wealth tax." But it highlights some of the same issues lawmakers would face in designing a broader national levy, including which assets to include, how to value them, and how to limit opportunities to avoid the tax.
Meanwhile, other states are debating tax changes aimed at high earners, though these proposals concern income rather than total wealth.
- Colorado voters will consider Amendment 87, which would replace the state's flat 4.4% income tax with graduated rates, including higher rates for people earning more than $500,000.
- Washington state voters, meanwhile, will decide whether to repeal a new 9.9% tax on annual income above $1 million.
The difference between wealth taxes and inheritance tax
It's also important to note that a wealth tax and an inheritance tax target different things. A wealth tax would generally apply to assets a person owns, while an inheritance tax applies to money or property someone receives from a person who has passed away.
An inheritance tax is also different from an estate tax. An estate tax is generally assessed on the estate before assets are distributed to beneficiaries. An inheritance tax (when applicable) is imposed on the recipient.
In any case, a tax rate approaching 100%, as suggested by Kirby, on very large inheritances would represent a major change from current federal law.
Supporters of higher inheritance taxes often argue that taxing large transfers of wealth could help reduce wealth concentration and raise money for public services. Critics counter that high rates could make it harder to pass family businesses or other assets to the next generation, potentially forcing heirs to sell assets to cover a tax bill.
The effects would depend heavily on how any new tax would be designed, including the size of the exemption, the rate schedule, and how assets such as closely held businesses would be treated.
And of course, there's politics: passing a national wealth tax would be difficult in a deeply divided Congress.
What new taxes mean for your financial plan
For now, Kirby's comments don't change the tax rules for your investments or inheritance. Most families also don't need to worry about the federal estate tax.
But if you're concerned about tax liability, don't overlook state taxes. Some states have estate tax exemptions well below the federal limit, and as previously mentioned, certain states tax some inheritances and estates.
As a result, depending on where you live and where the person leaving you assets lived, state taxes could affect how much you or your heirs ultimately keep.
Consult a trusted tax advisor or certified financial planner who knows your financial circumstances.
Related
- Midterm Elections Tax Measures Target High Income
- California Wealth Tax on the November Ballot: What to Know
- Capital Gains Tax Rates for 2026
- Estate Tax vs Inheritance Tax: Who Actually Pays the Bill?
