United Airlines chief executive Scott Kirby has advocated for a national wealth tax and an inheritance tax approaching 100 percent on amounts above a set threshold, a position that has drawn a forceful rebuttal in an opinion piece published by Fox News. The column, written by Julio Gonzalez, founder of Engineered Tax Services, argues that such proposals would push the country in the wrong direction by discouraging the building and passing down of wealth.
According to reporting that the column cites, Kirby believes wealth inequality requires a national response. The author acknowledges Kirby's right to make that argument but contends that a proposal to take nearly everything above a government-determined threshold deserves a strong challenge. The core objection is that the ability to build something and leave it to one's family is among the most powerful incentives in the economy, and that treating it as a social problem would undermine that incentive.
The author draws on his experience working with business owners, investors and job creators. He notes that much of their wealth sits in operating companies, buildings, equipment and ownership interests. These assets are productive but often illiquid, meaning they are not readily convertible to cash. A business valuation, he writes, does not mean the owner has that sum in a bank account. An annual wealth tax could nonetheless demand payment based on estimated asset values, even when the owner has received no corresponding income.
In that scenario, the column says, owners could be forced to borrow, sell assets or withdraw capital from their businesses. Money that might otherwise fund equipment, expansion or hiring could instead go toward paying a tax on continued ownership. The author argues that supporters of such a tax must explain why that tradeoff would serve the workers whose opportunities depend on those investments.
The inheritance proposal, in the author's view, raises a more basic question: who should decide what happens to a lifetime of work. Parents often sacrifice so that their children have greater security and opportunity, and entrepreneurs take risks knowing their success could benefit their families long after they are gone. The column describes that motivation as deserving respect and as a driver of real economic growth.
The column also notes that Kirby has reportedly not specified the threshold at which inheritance taxes would approach 100 percent, and says that omission matters. Even at an extremely high threshold, the author argues, a near-total marginal tax would give government an overwhelming claim on the portion of an estate above its chosen limit. He asks why Washington should have a stronger claim to that property than the people its owner chooses to support.
The author acknowledges that advocates argue inherited wealth can entrench privilege and that this concern deserves a serious response. He contends, however, that confiscating a successful family's legacy does not by itself equip another family to build one, and he questions the record of elected officials in managing budgets and programs. He proposes judging policy by whether it helps more Americans become owners, through starting companies, buying property, acquiring skills, securing financing and accumulating savings.
The column also addresses the nature of accumulated wealth, observing that some reflects income already taxed while some reflects appreciation that has not yet been taxed. It argues that reasoning against confiscatory taxation does not require ignoring that distinction, only recognizing that taxes change incentives and that property rights should remain meaningful even for highly successful owners. It further notes that Kirby's reported willingness to pay these taxes himself does not settle the matter, since public policy must account for people with different assets and circumstances.
The piece closes by calling for more vigorous competition, fewer barriers to business formation and broader pathways to financial independence, along with scrutiny of special favors that protect incumbents. It urges government to show discipline with the resources it already receives before claiming new authority over private wealth. The column is an opinion piece, and the proposals it discusses, including Kirby's remarks, have not been enacted into policy.