United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby collected roughly $32.3 million in total compensation last year — and he wants people like himself taxed more, starting with a levy on the wealth they already hold.

Kirby laid out the position in a mid-October interview with The New York Times, calling wealth inequality a problem that "has become a danger to our society." He backed a national wealth tax and inheritance taxes that "get close to 100% at some level." "I would pay them," he said.

United, a Fortune 500 company that generated $59.1 billion in revenue last year, confirmed the pay figure in its proxy statement, as Fortune reported on October 20. The remarks drew immediate pushback, much of it aimed at Kirby's own paycheck. Fox Business asked United how the CEO squared a $32.3 million package with his warnings about inequality. The company did not respond.

Kirby did not retreat. A few days later, on CNBC's Squawk Box on October 21, he framed the argument as a question of fairness.

"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.

What does Kirby want to change?

The gap he targets is structural. The federal system taxes income, not accumulated wealth. In 2025, the top rate of 37% applied to single filers' taxable income above $626,350, according to the IRS. Investments that rise in value but are never sold escape taxation entirely.

Kirby stressed that these are personal views and that he has no interest in politics or policymaking. His preferred design, he said, would be a system "where we had lower income taxes, and higher taxes, or some kind of taxes, on the gain in wealth."

He also rejected a state-by-state approach. "We should have a national wealth tax — it won't work by state because people will just move," he told the Times, as Fortune reported on October 25.

California has just tested that proposition. In the November 3 election, voters rejected Proposition 40, the so-called billionaire tax, which would have imposed a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of state residents worth more than $1 billion. The Associated Press called the race on November 9: 52.8% of voters were opposed, according to CalMatters.

The measure had high-profile backing, including six Nobel Prize-winning economists who argued it could kick-start similar efforts in other states and countries. The money told a different story. Opponents spent roughly $378 million against the measure; the yes campaign raised $33.5 million — an eleven-to-one spending gap. Silicon Valley voters broke against the proposition even as Los Angeles and San Francisco voted yes.

What is the case against taxing wealth?

Mariana Trujillo, managing director of government finance at the Reason Foundation, a libertarian-leaning think tank, told Fortune the policy 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. Economic progress, not the state, has driven improvements in our material condition. A wealth tax discourages the very thing it aims to promote," she said.

Trujillo drew a sharp line between Kirby's two proposals. An inheritance tax hits wealth once, when it changes hands. An annual wealth tax hits it every year — and that, she argued, gives the wealthiest Americans and their capital a reason to leave.

"An annual wealth tax is entirely different from an inheritance tax…. People move out of states and countries for tax reasons. 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.

A few European countries have kept the levy: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland still impose net wealth taxes, according to the Tax Foundation.

Trujillo also addressed Kirby directly. "If Kirby believes his wealth could be better used to improve others' lives, he is free to put it toward that purpose," she said. "But I hope he recognizes that his compensation reflects the perceived value of his contributions to his company and, therefore, to society at large. Wealth does not need to be redistributed to be productive; it is already the result of creating value for others."

On California's result, she was categorical: "California's wealth tax proposal failed at the ballot box for good reasons: first, because voters recognized it may reduce government revenue as people leave, and second, because they saw it as discouraging investment and innovation, which make our lives better."

Where does the debate stand?

Kirby says the emails he received after his comments split about evenly for and against. His standing as the chief executive of one of the country's largest airlines — and one of its most richly paid — gives the argument an unusual messenger.

The California vote suggests the country has not caught up with him. A proposal championed by Nobel laureates, outspent more than elevenfold, failed with 52.8% opposed.

If California is any guide, the rest of the country isn't far behind.