You keep referring to public company CEOs who make "100 million a year."
I believe you are exaggerating this topic.
Most of that money, probably at least 95% in most cases, is coming from appreciation in stock options. It isn't real money, it is paper wealth, and in many cases is never received by the CEO. It represents an ownership share in the underlying company.
Here's an example...
Let's say that your company, let's call it Hartmann Inc, thought it had the potential to expand into television and become its own network, "The Hartman Network (THI)". To manage this expansion you bring in a CEO with media company experience. In order to attract the right person you offer this person an equity interest in 10% of your company. Normally, this is accomplished through options, which give the person the value of the upside, rather than the actual equity. Now, let's say this person succeeds, and the value of THI rises from a couple million, to a company with a billion dollar valuation.
Are you following me? The THI CEO would now have a paper valuation of $100 million (his 10%), and THI's shareholders would own the other 90%, and would have seen an increased value of $900 million.
Because THI is a public company, and the value of the CEO's investment is in stock, the CEO is unlikely to be able to sell a significant percentage of his stock. However, the holders of that other $900 million in equity, have no such limitations on them. They freely sell the stock and take their profits. This money generates jobs when it is spent. The shareholders are happy. And, of course, THI would now by employing hundreds or thousands of people, and each of those are jobs.
So .. the CEO theoretically has a paper profit, if s/he can ever convert it to cash. Then, of course, if he does convert it to cash, you would see it taxed at 74% or more (but, that of course is another story...)
Hopefully you can see that you aren't telling the full story when you disparage those "greedy" corporate CEOs.
The real truth is that a good CEO can grow a company, and a bad CEO can put a company out of business. There is a correlation between corporate profitability and corporate health. There is a correlation between corporate health and jobs. Companies that are well run tend to generate more jobs than companies that are poorly run. During my tenure running a public company I oversaw many layoffs. By keeping the staff size aligned with revenue I was able to maintain profitability through good times and bad, which allowed the company to grow, and created thousands of jobs.
Large company CEOs are not bad guys. I have known many and I have never met one who did not want to grow their company. Personal wealth is certainly a priority for these people, but the vast majority only make a dime if shareholders make a dollar (or more). Have there been anomalies where a CEO made money, and shareholders lost value?, sure. In a free market system there are times when the system does strange things, but these are the exceptions, not the rule. Generally, if you look at the major corporate disasters (Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mae to name a couple), you will find that government regulation "helped" the disaster to occur.
Focus on jobs, and take care of people that generate jobs.There is a pattern here. Look at states and counties that are business friendly, and you will see that they generate more jobs. Demonize the entities and persons that generate jobs, and they will take their jobs elsewhere.