United Airlines CEO: 'We Should Have a National Wealth Tax'

Wednesday, October 21, 2026

"Wealth inequality has become a danger to our society, and we need to address that," [United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby] said. "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."

Posted by taxman at 08:31 AM | 16 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby defends charging more for an aisle or window seat in a new interview with the New York Times.

[image or embed]
-- Yahoo Finance (@yahoofinance.com) 9:42 PM Â· Oct 19, 2026

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

He sees the crippling costs that the GOP has inflicted on Americans and how it will impact air travel and ruin his cushy job.

The hoarding of wealth at the top is unsustainable.

Health care costs increasing 4x the rate of wage growth is unsustainable.

Housing costs increasing at twice the growth of wages is unsustainable.

It will all fall apart.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-10-20 11:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The cynic in me says the real underlying issue for him is all of the wealthy people and their private/chartered jets are causing harm to his industry.

#2 | Posted by taxman at 2026-10-20 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good to see you, Taxman. Been a while......

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2026-10-20 12:29 PM | Reply

#1 | POSTED BY NIXON A
#2 | POSTED BY TAXMAN

Nah, that's the populous take, the comment came when he was asked about eroding public trust in CEOs. This is all reputation or framing for himself as concerned about inequality, hoping it can soften criticism of high executive pay and airline fees.

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-10-20 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Eberly, I've been lurking just not posting. Thanks for the welcome back.

#5 | Posted by taxman at 2026-10-20 04:01 PM | Reply

wb taxman.

#6 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2026-10-20 04:22 PM | Reply

Corporate taxes back to 50%+.

#7 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-10-20 06:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Wealth inequality has become a danger to our society, and we need to address that"

How about you address it personally, at United Airlines, where you're the CEO?

To his, uh, credit, it's definitely on-brand for a Capitalist to say government ought to solve the problem his own actions as CEO helped create.

The concept of personal responsibility is unknown to these people. Then again, for Capitalism to function, we require the State to shield the personal assets of the stakeholders against the claims of creditors and lawsuits.

Rich people not taking personal responsibility for their actions is the lifeblood of Capitalism.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-10-20 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How about you address it personally, at United Airlines, where you're the CEO?

And lower profits by 1%? The Board will hang him.

He wants the government to do it for him.

#9 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-10-21 07:44 AM | Reply

What kind of pay cut did he take to help fix this?

#10 | Posted by qcp at 2026-10-21 09:23 AM | Reply

Obviously he's a "Socialist," right?
Isn't that the usual smear word to tar everyone that goes against the Trump era status quo?

#11 | Posted by e1g1 at 2026-10-21 09:58 AM | Reply

How do you implement a wealth tax?

Tax returns are about taxing transactions

estate taxes are about taxing a transfer of assets

property taxes are about taxing real estate, which can be identified

wealth is considerably more problematic when you see how assets can be titled and hid behind multiple entities.

It's a complicated issue

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2026-10-21 10:07 AM | Reply

And lower profits by 1%? The Board will hang him.
He wants the government to do it for him.

#9 | Posted by Nixon

You are correct. That was my point.
He is looking for the Government to force him to do the right thing.

He doesn't have the mettle to simply do the right thing by himself, for himself.
And why? Because it would cost him his job.
That's Capitalism in a nutshell.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-10-21 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

property taxes are about taxing real estate, which can be identified
#12 | Posted by eberly

Assets are property.
I guess you're saying the rich would lie, and hide their assets.

And that why it's "complicated."
Because rich people will lie when money is on the line.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-10-21 10:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2026-10-21 10:07 AM | REPLY

You are correct, it is a very complicated issue and constitutional issue. Under the U.S. Constitution, a federal wealth tax would likely be considered a direct tax. Unlike indirect taxes (such as duties, imposts, and excises) which must be geographically uniform, direct taxes must be apportioned among the states based on population, meaning each state's total tax contribution must match its share of the U.S. population. The federal income tax is a direct tax, but the 16th Amendment specifically carves out income taxes from indirect tax handcuff. You also have the "realization" issue in that generally there needs to be a realization event for a tax to arise - some accretion to wealth.

One popular alternative is to turn off the "buy, borrow, die" spigot. One planning technique used by the super wealthy is to borrow against appreciated assets and use those proceeds to generate gains at a rate higher than any interest paid. Borrowing is not a realization event - meaning if I own real estate with a fair market value of $10mil and a tax basis of $0 and I sold that property, I would have $10mil of taxable gain realized, if instead I borrow $5mil at an 8% rate against that property that isn't a realization event. So the wealthy lever up assets and then when they die the beneficiaries will get a step up in basis in the asset. So, that $10mil property with zero basis is now a $10mil property with $10mil in basis. If the beneficiaries turn around sell for $10mil, there is no gain. You can then use the proceeds to pay down any remaining debt. The idea would be to make the borrowing against the property a realization event for the super wealthy so that in the example above, when an owner borrows the $5mil, it will be taxable. That route is a lot easier than a wealth tax.

#15 | Posted by taxman at 2026-10-21 03:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"One popular alternative is to turn off the "buy, borrow, die" spigot"

Closing the loopholes that allow wealth to avoid taxation is, effectively, the same thing as a wealth tax.
And you've even identified an easy way to make it happen that doesn't require any counting up of wealth.
Just make the income from loans taxable like the income from paychecks.

You might even put in some kind of means test, so people like Eberly taking out a HELOC for everyday purposes don't take it in the pants. Assuming that would be a similar type of loan, of course.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-10-21 03:47 PM | Reply