Perhaps we could start with companies that bid on contracts (or receive no-bid contracts) above some threshold. Here are some recent top federal contractors and what Bloomberg News estimates as the ratio of top pay to the average worker’s: Oracle, 1,287-to-1; General Electric, 491-to-1; AT&T, 339-to-1; and Lockheed Martin, 315-to-1.

Common sense and tradition point to limits for those in government. It is our money, after all. Mary Todd Lincoln stirred resentment when she overspent the White House budget. The citizens of Bell, Calif., rightly went nuts when they learned their city manager and other top officials were pulling down high six-figure salaries. Even Mitt Romney promised to “stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve.”

Sadly, Mr. Romney’s target was hard-working midlevel government servants who, thanks to prudence and public-sector unions, have not seen their pay rates deteriorate as much as private-sector employees trying to survive globalization, privatization, deregulation, worldwide economic slowdowns and austerity.

My maximum-wage proposal, though, aims at the ratio of top-to-bottom pay levels — not midlevel to bottom-level pay. You can also argue that raising midlevel pay for federal workers is as critical as lifting the federal minimum wage if the government is to attract and retain better-motivated, higher-performing employees. Not to mention the challenge of linking better pay to a more robust recovery in an economy more than two-thirds dependent on consumer spending.

Applying a maximum-wage limit to government contractors not only would result in smaller taxpayer subsidies for the top 1 percent but would also lead to more efficient and effective pricing and services from companies truly interested in serving the public instead of soaking the taxpayer. Companies that put service above executive compensation would also pay employees much better.