The problem is not how clear you are, but that you make no sense. Let's take an easy example, the lefts favorite whipping boy, Walmart. The average employee is low paid, but the CEO makes $21M. Clearly an outrage, right?
My understanding of your position is that if he was not making $21M, that money would be used to get his employees out of poverty, and that his $21M represents 'most of the proceeds', and the rest of the employees are living off 'crumbs'.
Let's make the insane assumption that every employee, other than the CEO, makes $8/hr, works half time (1000 hrs/yr), and has no benefits (paid time off, insurance, employee discounts, etc) at all. Since they have 2.1M employees, that means a payroll of $16.8B. The CEOs compensation represents 1/8 of 1% of the payroll. Please explain how that is 'most of the proceeds' and the 99 and 7/8% of money going to the employees is 'the crumbs'.
Now, as for cutting his compensation and using that money to get the employees out of poverty. If you cut his compensation to $0, and distribute it to the employees, you have given each employee $10. Per YEAR. Are you really going to claim that $10/yr is the difference between poverty and not poverty?