A talented businessman ends up making more money because his talents bring in revenue to the business. But churches are not (or at least ought not be) businesses. They aren’t in operation to turn a financial profit – unless, of course, you are suggesting that a “talented” pastor is one who can fill the coffers. But I don’t think that’s what you’re getting at.
A “talented” pastor may well spend his life serving an impoverished congregation. That’s why the pastor’s pay ought to be relative to his congregation’s wealth. The congregation ought to show him honor and dignity by giving willingly and heartily to support his need, but they also can’t give what they don’t have.
Besides, what is a “talented” pastor anyway? Does it refer to his skill in exegesis, the eloquence of his speech, or the overall winsomeness of his preaching? His ability to write books? Are we talking about his skills of administration, in running the church corporation?
I guess I don’t think a pastor’s value ought to be much measured by his talent, but rather by his faithfulness. There are many talented pastors who spend their days in an ivory tower, and then condescend to the pulpit once a week to give an oration. Meanwhile, there are many “average” pastors who are passable preachers at best, but are nonetheless tireless and available to love, care for, and bear the burdens of the sheep. Pastors are worthy of double honor for their labor, not for their talent.