Agreed. On the other hand, is it really 100 times more work to manage an investment of 10 M than one of 100k? 1000 times more work to manage 1 bn than 1 m?

No, but pay isn't based on how hard the work is. It's based on the value provided, and/or on the influence the individual has; and somebody able to attract 1bn is much more influential than someone with just 1m under management.

why are VC's taking 200-300k+ as salaries when founders are expected to subsist on just above avg wage or around 100k?

Part of raising money from (most) LPs requires a bit of showmanship akin to that of Lawyers and Investment Bankers. This goes beyond the taking a "client" out to dinner. It's the expectation of living a specific lifestyle and the perceptions the wealthy have of those asking for money. Also, consider the amount raised (typically XX million+). That usually allows you to pay $200-300k salaries (though whether that's right / justified is a different conversation).

As wealth changes hands over time, this expectation may change.

Well they can charge all the expense to the fund and still take nominal salaries.

The startup world isn't encouraging of founders who take high salaries or who take money off the table..

Some of this exorbitant salaries could have been paid to extend the runaway of key startups and generate better returns.

Because they can?

I understand that but I can see fellow founders condemn other founders for taking an above avg salary or as was the case with the founders who took $6m [0] off the table during funding...

Surely the Lp's should look at such high salaries as exorbitant..

[0] - Secret App that has since closed shop