Some wealthy Americans, including Bill Gates, have publicly said they'd be fine paying more in taxes. Kevin O'Leary heard that sentiment and responded with what amounts to a hard pass.

During an April appearance on Fox Business, the hosts brought up an essay arguing that Americans worth more than $100 million "don't need that much money." The timing coincided with reports that President Donald Trump had briefly considered whether top earners might face a tax increase. When O'Leary was asked for his reaction, he didn't ease into his answer.

"That is dead on arrival 50 times over," he said immediately. The proposal wasn't just flawed in his view—it fundamentally misunderstood how the country should treat success. "Taxing the rich and punishing them for being successful is not the American dream," he continued. "They pay the majority of the taxes already. They pay billions in taxes."

His argument was direct: high earners already carry most of the tax burden, and raising their rates won't fix the country's fiscal challenges. The real issue, O'Leary said, isn't a revenue shortfall from the wealthy—it's Washington's chronic inability to control spending. He pointed out that even Democrats have warned lawmakers to stop bringing budgets that add another $2 trillion in debt every single time.

Rather than hiking taxes on the rich, O'Leary said he'd prefer targeted changes that reward people actually doing the work. He praised Trump's proposal to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, calling it a "cool idea for people who work really hard." Keeping the current tax structure "as it stands," he added, would be "good enough," especially given how difficult it is to push anything through Congress.

Then he shifted to the investor perspective. O'Leary wants the government to encourage long-term capital allocation, not discourage it. He criticized what he called "helicopter money" and said he'd rather see zero capital-gains taxes when investing in strategic industries like chip manufacturing. In his view, incentives move capital where it's needed. 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 said. That approach, he argued, doesn't strengthen the economy—it makes it harder for innovators and investors to take the kinds of risks that drive growth.

The rumored tax increase on high earners never materialized into policy, but the debate was loud enough to dominate cable news segments, think-tank analyses, and public conversation. O'Leary's position stayed consistent throughout: don't penalize the people already paying most of the bill. Instead, encourage growth, reward hard work, and figure out how to stop adding trillions to the national debt.

Whether you agree with him or not, he made his case with the kind of force you'd expect. And if the tax debate flares up again—which it inevitably will—don't expect O'Leary to soften his stance.