If there is no maximum wage, then why would you want to take from the rich and give to the poor at some arbitrary level as you stated, 40 times what the guy on the bottom makes?
Any company that bases its CEO's pay on the performance of the janitor or receptionist is bound for failure.
Let me ask you this. Lets assume society adopts your insane idea of a CEO not making more than 40 times the bottom wage earners. And now lets say the bottom wage earner has been there a while, received regular raises up to a pretty decent click. Thus the CEO has had correspondingly increased his salary comensurate. Now, the receptionist quits and a new one is hired. The only way the CEO would NOT take a pay cut is for the receptionist to be brought on at the same pay as the one who had been there for 10 years. That is unfair to the old receptionist who worked so hard, and unfair to the CEO who, if he doesn't do this, would take a pay cut himself by no fault of his own. This artificial continuing to increase salary would just cause inflation, as these continually increasing costs would be passed on to the product or service the company provides.
Now do you see how asinine your ideas really are? Low wage earners in companies have a high turnover ratio, so while my example uses one person, you can easily expand it to include 50. It's the same idea.