United's Kirby Defends Wealth Tax Despite $32.3 Million Pay

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby collected roughly $32.3 million in total compensation last year, according to Fortune's reporting on United's proxy statement. He now argues that people in his position should pay more, starting with a federal levy on wealth they already hold. The arithmetic invites a double take. So does the timing.

In a mid-October interview with The New York Times, Kirby said wealth inequality "has become a danger to our society." He called for a national wealth tax plus inheritance taxes that "get close to 100% at some level." His response to the obvious question was direct: "I would pay them."

Why is an airline chief campaigning for higher taxes?

Kirby doubled down days later on CNBC's Squawk Box, framing the idea as a question of fairness rather than politics. His reasoning targets a specific gap in the federal system, which taxes income rather than accumulated assets.

"I think a wealth tax… is just about fairness… If you're wealthy enough, you can put money aside, and by the way, I think it would apply to me, put money aside, let it grow forever, never realize income on it, you can let it grow forever and it never gets taxed," he said.

The numbers explain the complaint. In 2025, the top federal rate of 37% applied to single filers' taxable income above $626,350, according to the IRS. Appreciating investments that are never sold escape taxation entirely. Kirby runs a Fortune 500 company that generated $59.1 billion in revenue last year.

He stressed these were personal views and that he has no interest in politics or policymaking. His preferred design would trade levies: "lower income taxes, and higher taxes, or some kind of taxes, on the gain in wealth."

Not everyone applauded. Fox Business asked United how Kirby squared his paycheck with his warnings about inequality. The company did not respond.

What does the opposition argue?

Mariana Trujillo, managing director of government finance at the Reason Foundation, a libertarian-leaning think tank, told Fortune that a wealth tax would undercut the growth it aims to share.

"Taxing accumulated wealth discourages investment and entrepreneurship — the very forces that have made our lives better than those of our grandparents and great-grandparents," she said. "A wealth tax discourages the very thing it aims to promote."

Trujillo draws a sharp distinction between Kirby's two proposals:

• An inheritance tax (a levy applied once, when assets change hands) hits wealth a single time.
• An annual wealth tax hits it every year, and gives the wealthiest Americans and their capital a reason to leave.

"National wealth taxes failed in Europe, where countries including France, Sweden, and Germany abandoned them amid concerns about capital flight, administrative costs, and disappointing revenues," she said. Norway, Spain, and Switzerland still levy net wealth taxes, according to the Tax Foundation.

She also had a message for Kirby himself. "If Kirby believes his wealth could be better used to improve others' lives, he is free to put it toward that purpose," she said, adding that his compensation already reflects value created for society.

What did California voters just decide?

Kirby has argued a state-by-state approach is doomed. "We should have a national wealth tax — it won't work by state because people will just move," he told the Times.

California tested that proposition. In the November 3 election, voters rejected Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of residents worth more than $1 billion. The Associated Press called the race on November 9, with 52.8% opposed, according to CalMatters.

The campaign spending was lopsided:

• Opponents spent about $378 million against the measure.
• The yes campaign raised $33.5 million.
• Six Nobel Prize-winning economists backed the proposal.
• Silicon Valley voters broke against it, even as Los Angeles and San Francisco voted yes.

Trujillo reads the result as a verdict on the idea itself: voters recognized the tax could shrink revenue as people leave, and saw it as discouraging investment and innovation.

Kirby says the emails he received about his comments split about evenly for and against. If California is any guide, the rest of the country is not far behind.