It would distort the free market and no one would take the risk or the very hard work like 70 hour work weeks, MBAs, and other things for dozens of years without the compensation.
Doing so would make great talent do something else or not try as hard and everyone looses out.
Once upon a time these earnings were effectively capped by vigorous oversight from boards of directors, and that didn't seem to create a mass-exodus of talent, nor did it in-any-way slow down innovation or competition.
Plus, if somebody is really so "talented" they have "earned" $100 million per year I would postulate their time would be better spent starting their own business so instead of just getting a "cut" of the company's profits he gets all of them. Certainly if he's actually worth $100 million he's got more than enough talent to make that happen.
If someone is paid too much the market takes care of that with something called a firing.
CEOs aren't "fired" the same way you and I are. You want them gone? Great! You trigger their golden parachute and they're set for life! Such total lack of accountability is what leads to blundering performers walking away richer than an oil tycoon for delivering zero value, or in some cases, erasing millions in value through mismanagement. Sears comes to mind, as the spectacular recent example of some arrogant hedge-fund asshole negotiating an enormous pay package for himself and then nearly putting the company under in just a couple short years.
And the fact that you'd try to conflate such masters of the universe with a salaryman's layoff sort of underscores why your point of view is more than a little half baked. Maybe quarter-baked? But even that's generous.