In most liberal democratic societies there is a recurring public debate about top wages in the public sector. The remuneration of top officials such as legislators, ministers, senior civil servants and senior judges is, indeed, a topic that can be discussed with great passion in the public debate. The reason that this issue attracts public attention is not only the fact that these groups are paid by public funds, but also that the salaries of high public officials are under political control. The latter definitely addresses ethical issues, such as: What can be considered a fair salary? Is there – or what would be – a tenable argument for a specific salary level for these top officials? In the research literature it has been concluded that the amount of rewards offered to high public officials, the manner in which the benefits are awarded, and the differences in rewards among officials within the same political system tell a great deal about how governments function. Hence, the remuneration of top officials can be seen as an important element of public governance (Brans and Peters, 2012). That said, very few academic commentators have in a systematic and comprehensive manner analyzed the validity and consistency of the arguments of this rather disorganized debate. However, in a recently published book titled Paying Our High Public Officials by Teun J. Dekker, the author sets out to fill this research gap. The purpose of the book is to illuminate the debate concerning the proper remuneration of high public officials by applying philosophical methods to political discourse.