United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby calls for inheritance taxes near 100% and a national wealth tax. What he wants the US to change and why it matters

Scott Kirby, chief executive of United Airlines, has made a call for national wealth taxation as well as taxes on inheritance at close to 100% levels, stating that the increasing inequality between the wealthy and the poor poses a risk to American society. The statement was made in an interview with The New York Times, which came out on Sunday, while talking about reduced confidence in business leaders. The proposed measure would be quite a departure from the present US tax regime, whereby only part of large inheritances face estate taxes at the federal level.

The remarks have drawn attention partly because of Kirby’s own compensation. Based on reports from Fox News, the airline executive earned around $32.3 million in total compensation for FY 2025. In the interview, the executive stated that he was ready to pay the inheritance taxes that he supported.

Also Read | From $8 billion in farm aid to $5,000 checks and Medicare payments: What Trump’s latest financial promises mean for Americans ahead of the midterm elections


Kirby did not specify the wealth threshold at which his proposed inheritance tax would approach 100%, nor did he outline a rate for a national wealth tax. His comments nevertheless add a prominent business executive’s voice to the debate over how the United States should tax large fortunes and inherited assets.

Why United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby wants higher taxes on wealth

Kirby argued that wealth inequality has become serious enough to require a national response. He told The New York Times that a wealth tax would need to apply across the country rather than being introduced by individual states.

His concern is that wealthy Americans could move to states with lower taxes, limiting the effectiveness of local policies. A federal system, he suggested, would reduce the incentive to relocate solely to avoid the levy.

Also Read | Trump is facing record-low approval ahead of the 2026 US midterms as Democrats gain ground. Why history offers Republicans little comfort

As Fox News reported, Kirby also called for inheritance taxes that could approach 100% at certain levels of wealth.

He didn’t offer any plan that detailed which estates would be subjected to such a tax or what it would consist of.

Wealth taxes and inheritance taxes are two very different concepts. A wealth tax is normally a tax that is levied on the amount of wealth that a person owns. On the other hand, inheritance or estate tax is applied to wealth that is passed on after one’s death.

It appears that Kirby was talking about two separate reforms – one of them being the imposition of taxes on the accumulated wealth in one’s life and another – extremely high taxes on transfers of wealth after one’s death.

Neither proposal was presented in the interview as an enacted policy or a detailed legislative plan.

How Kirby’s proposal compares with current US estate tax rules

Even now, there is a federal tax on certain estates, and the system provides for an extensive exemption before the tax is levied. As stated by Fox News in its review of IRS data, the basic exemption for the federal estate tax is $15 million for each individual in 2026.

The top federal estate tax rate for taxable estates exceeding the relevant exemption is 40%, which is much lower than the rate nearing 100% that Kirby mentioned he would consider at some point.

Also Read | Vivek Ramaswamy is taking a different approach in Ohio’s governor race as voters question his tax plans, data centre policies and vision for the state

The difference is crucial because it shows that his statement does not mean that all inheritances would be taxed at a near-100% rate. No threshold was identified by him as the point at which such a tax rate would be imposed.

Any move towards such a system would raise practical questions for policymakers.

Such considerations might include the valuation of assets, the treatment of private firms and assets, and whether or not there will be the need for families to dispose of their assets to meet tax requirements.

Those who favour increased taxation of the wealthy believe that it will help deal with wealth concentration and fund public finances. Those against it have raised issues regarding investments, economic growth, and capital mobility, among others.

Fox News placed Kirby’s remarks within this broader debate over the potential consequences of increasing taxes on wealthy Americans. His interview did not settle those questions, and the proposal would require much more detail before its economic effects could be assessed.

Kirby’s tax views contrast with his defence of airline seat charges

Kirby also discussed United Airlines’ pricing practices during his interview with The New York Times. Asked about the cost passengers can face when trying to avoid a middle seat, he defended charging more for preferred seating.

According to Fox News, Kirby argued that providing a window seat or another preferred option comes at a cost and that customers should pay for the products and services they choose.

Also Read | Four crew members spent 365 days in a 1,700 sq ft, 3D-printed Mars habitat in isolation. How could it help NASA prepare for living on the Moon?

The comments highlight two different aspects of his approach to economic questions. On taxation, he says wealth inequality requires a national policy response. On airline pricing, he argues that charging different prices for different services allows an airline to accommodate customers with different preferences.

Kirby also expressed optimism about the US economy, describing the country’s future as “incredibly bright”, according to the interview.

His compensation has added another dimension to the reaction surrounding his tax comments.

Fox News reported that he received about $32.3 million in total compensation in fiscal year 2025.

Kirby’s statement that he would pay the taxes he supports places his own earnings in the discussion, although the interview did not establish how his compensation or personal assets would be treated under a future wealth tax.

As things stand, the proposal is only a proposal. He has pointed out a situation that he considers an emerging problem and advised that action needs to be taken by the federal government, yet he has not outlined the thresholds, taxes and processes required for his ideas to form legislation.

It will be up to policymakers and the general population to consider whether his statements will affect the larger discussion depending on their views on wealth disparity vs. investments, economic transactions, and inheritances.