Similarly, employees should accept the bare minimum salary they need to live on(perhaps with a modest vacation). Anything above this is unethical, since they are now profiting off of their employer.
In both cases, you are essentially condemning the person to stay in that position forever with no chance of advancement. It reminds me of the parable of the talents[1]; I tend to agree with its conclusion that the guy who manages 30 skyscrapers should be given this recently-built batch of 12 to manage, since he's already demonstrated competence. It's hard to make this actually happen if you take everything he has except a pittance, so his purchasing power is equal to that of somebody who has no business managing skyscrapers.
Why is advancement desirable? Giving people more responsibility when they prove they can handle it is one thing. It's entirely another to equate advancement with monetary compensation.
In general, I believe people should be incentivized with responsibility, which is in everyone's interest. Cash compensation only benefits one person; doubly so when considering the rate of tax avoidance in the upper echelons of income.
Theoretically, some kind of centrally-managed state that did regular performance reviews and allotted you responsibility could work to settle this particular point. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's a separate discussion and would work purely considering this point.
The United States isn't the right country for such a system, though. You might look at Japan: their corporations motivate people with social status more than money. The CEOs there don't directly make a large salary, and neither do the employees. Really, nobody makes a lot of money in Japan.
In both cases, you are essentially condemning the person to stay in that position forever with no chance of advancement. It reminds me of the parable of the talents[1]; I tend to agree with its conclusion that the guy who manages 30 skyscrapers should be given this recently-built batch of 12 to manage, since he's already demonstrated competence. It's hard to make this actually happen if you take everything he has except a pittance, so his purchasing power is equal to that of somebody who has no business managing skyscrapers.
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14...