Some of America's wealthiest — including Bill Gates — have said they wouldn't mind paying more in taxes. Investor Kevin O'Leary heard that idea and practically asked for the return policy.
During an April appearance on Fox Business," the hosts brought up an essay claiming Americans worth more than $100 million "don't need that much money." The timing lined up with reports that President Donald Trump had briefly weighed whether the top earners might see a tax hike. When they turned to O'Leary for his take, he didn't warm up the engines — he shut the runway lights off.
Don't Miss:
- Missed Nvidia and Tesla? RAD Intel Could Be the Next AI Powerhouse — Just $0.81 a Share
- 7 Million Gamers Already Trust Gameflip With Their Digital Assets — Now You Can Own a Stake in the Platform
"That is dead on arrival 50 times over," he said immediately, making it clear the idea wasn't just bad policy in his view — it completely missed the point of how the country should treat successful people. From there, he zeroed in on why he believes the idea falls apart. "Taxing the rich and punishing them for being successful is not the American dream," he said. "They pay the majority of the taxes already. They pay billions in taxes."
His message wasn't subtle: the highest earners are already carrying most of the load, and raising their rates won't solve the country's financial issues. O'Leary argued that the problem isn't a lack of revenue from wealthy households — it's the inability of Washington to pass a budget without adding more debt. He pointed out that even Democrats have warned lawmakers, in his words, "guys we gotta stop bringing budgets where we go another $2 trillion into debt every time we bring a budget."
Trending: Buffett's Secret to Wealth? Private Real Estate—Get Institutional Access Yourself
Instead of raising taxes on the rich, O'Leary said he'd rather see targeted changes that reward hard work at the ground level. He praised Trump's push for no tax on tips and overtime, calling it a "cool idea for people who work really hard." Keeping the current tax structure "as it stands," he said, would be "good enough," noting that the existing code is already difficult to get through Congress.
Then came the investor angle. O'Leary said he wants the government to encourage long-term investment, not discourage it. He slammed what he called "helicopter money" and said he'd rather see zero capital-gains taxes when he puts money into strategic industries such as chip manufacturing. Incentives, he said, move capital. Punitive tax hikes do the opposite.
"We don't need to get into a place where we say ‘oh you're too rich and successful, let's screw you down,'" he added. To him, that mindset doesn't strengthen the country — it makes it harder for innovators and investors to take risks that create growth.
See Also: Wall Street's $12B Real Estate Manager Is Opening Its Doors to Individual Investors — Without the Crowdfunding Middlemen
The rumored tax increase on high earners never became policy, but the conversation sparked enough debate to spill into cable news, think-tank analyses, and the wider public. And O'Leary's argument remained straightforward from start to finish: don't punish the people who already pay most of the bill — encourage growth, reward work, and stop adding trillions in debt.
Whether people agree with him or not, he delivered his stance with characteristic force. And if the tax debate returns — as it always does — it's safe to assume O'Leary won't be changing his script anytime soon.
Read Next: Bill Gates Invests Billions in Green Tech — This Tree-Free Material Could Be the Next Big Breakthrough
Image: Imagn
