United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby advocates for a national wealth tax and an inheritance tax approaching 100% on amounts exceeding a threshold. My response is simple: Washington should not become the principal beneficiary of the American Dream.

According to reporting highlighted by Fox Business, Kirby believes wealth inequality requires a national response. He has every right to make that argument. But a proposal to confiscate nearly everything above a government-determined threshold deserves a forceful challenge.

The ability to build something and leave it to your family is one of the most powerful incentives in our economy. Treating that aspiration as a social problem would send America in precisely the wrong direction.

As the founder of Engineered Tax Services, I have spent my career working with people who build businesses, invest in communities and create jobs. Their wealth often exists in operating companies, buildings, equipment and ownership interests. Those assets are productive — and frequently illiquid.

A business valuation does not mean a business owner has that amount sitting in a checking account. Yet an annual wealth tax could demand cash based on an estimated asset value, even when the owner has received no corresponding income. Where does the money come from?

Depending on the rules, owners could have to borrow, sell assets or withdraw capital from their businesses. Money that might have funded equipment, expansion or hiring could instead go toward paying a tax on continued ownership. Supporters must explain why that tradeoff would serve the workers whose opportunities depend on those investments.

The inheritance proposal raises an even more fundamental question: Who should decide what happens to a lifetime of work? Parents often sacrifice because they want their children to have greater security and opportunity. Entrepreneurs take risks knowing that success could benefit their families long after they are gone. That motivation deserves respect — and drives real economic growth.

Kirby reportedly has not specified the threshold at which inheritance taxes should approach 100%. That omission matters. Nobody should pretend his remarks establish a detailed proposal affecting every family business.

But even at an extremely high threshold, the principle remains troubling. A near-total marginal tax would give government an overwhelming claim on the portion of an estate above its chosen limit. Why should Washington have a stronger claim to that property than the people its owner chooses to support? Why should an arbitrary number set by the government determine the extent of one person’s property rights relative to another’s?

Advocates will argue that inherited wealth can entrench privilege. That concern deserves a serious response. Birth should never determine the limits of a person's opportunity. But neither should the government.

Confiscating a successful family's legacy does not, by itself, equip another family to build one. And elected officials don’t have a great track record when it comes to managing budgets and programs.

We should judge policy by whether it helps more Americans become owners: start a company, purchase property, acquire useful skills, secure financing and accumulate savings.

That is where my commitment to tax equality comes from. Too many small businesses lack access to the expertise, incentives and opportunities that sophisticated organizations know how to use. Expanding that access offers a practical path toward broader prosperity.

Also, be honest about taxation: Some accumulated wealth reflects income already taxed; some reflects appreciation that has not yet been taxed. Sound reasoning against confiscatory taxation does not require pretending every dollar has the same history. It requires recognizing that taxes change incentives — and that property rights should remain meaningful even when an owner becomes extraordinarily successful.

Kirby's reported willingness to pay these taxes himself does not settle the issue. Public policy must account for people with different assets, obligations and circumstances. One executive's willingness cannot substitute for a workable national policy.

America needs vigorous competition, fewer barriers to business formation and more pathways to financial independence. We should challenge special favors that protect incumbents and make it harder for newcomers to compete.

And we should demand that government demonstrate discipline with the resources it already receives before granting it sweeping new claims on private wealth. The American promise is that effort, risk and perseverance can create something lasting. We should strengthen that promise for families still trying to get ahead. Build more owners. Open more doors. Let Americans leave a legacy.