The Tax Pitch That Could Spell The ‘End Of America’

Scott Kirby, the CEO of United Airlines, went public this week proposing a national wealth tax and inheritance taxes that could reach near-100% on large estates. This isn't a fringe academic proposal—it's coming from the helm of one of America's three largest carriers, a company with $60 billion in annual revenue and 350,000 employees. Kirby framed it as a solution to inequality and a way to fund public priorities. Investment banker Lou Basenese, appearing on media platforms aligned with conservative economics, called the idea potentially catastrophic—arguing that taxing accumulated wealth rather than income crosses a constitutional and practical line that, if crossed, could fundamentally alter the American economic system.

The mechanics matter here because they're legally and practically distinct from income taxation. A wealth tax targets the total value of assets someone owns—stocks, real estate, art, business equity—and takes a percentage annually. An inheritance tax approaching 100% would mean that when someone dies, the state claims nearly all assets above a certain threshold. France attempted a wealth tax starting in 1989; it collected far less revenue than projected, cost more to administer than it raised, and was repealed in 2017 after wealthy individuals and businesses relocated. The IRS already struggles to enforce the existing estate tax, and adding a separate annual wealth tax would require new valuation mechanisms for illiquid assets like private businesses and real estate—creating either massive compliance costs or massive evasion.

What's actually at stake: If a wealth tax were enacted at scale, it would hit business owners, farmers with valuable land, and anyone holding appreciated assets. The liquidity problem is concrete and severe. A business owner with a $10 million company and $500,000 in cash would face an annual wealth tax bill they couldn't pay without selling pieces of the business—each year. Over decades, this forces generational transfer of family enterprises to outside investors or forces their breakup. For farmers and real estate holders, similar pressure applies. Basenese's "end of America" framing is rhetorical, but the underlying mechanism he's warning about is real: steady erosion of wealth-based economic independence and accelerated consolidation of business ownership into hands large enough to absorb the tax burden.

Kirby's pitch is notable precisely because it breaks the conventional line where CEO activism stays within shareholder capitalism. He's calling for a tax structure that would directly hit the asset-holding class he belongs to. This could reflect genuine conviction about redistribution, or positioning as a "responsible billionaire" ahead of potential wealth tax legislation, or both. The conservative argument is straightforward: this is an attempt to lock in economic advantage by raising the drawbridge—making it harder for the next generation of wealth-builders to actually accumulate wealth and pass it on. If you can't keep what you earn and build, you stop building. The proposal penalizes exactly the behavior that built United Airlines and the wealth Kirby himself possesses.

The concrete next step is Congressional action. Representative Jamaal Bowman and others have already introduced wealth tax proposals in the House. The Senate hasn't moved on comparable legislation, but the 2024 election cycle will determine whether that changes. Watch for whether Democratic campaign platforms adopt wealth taxation as a centerpiece—and whether any Republican-controlled chamber moves to preempt it with legislation explicitly prohibiting wealth taxes. There's also a constitutional question waiting: wealth taxes have never been tested at the federal level, and the 16th Amendment's language specifically authorizes "income" taxes, not asset taxes. If Congress passes one, a legal challenge would go immediately to the Supreme Court.