How Then Shall We Live: We Have Enough

I believe Conference leadership has been operating out of a model of scarcity for several years. One recent example is the sudden elimination of a District Superintendent position. Was there an alternative option? And, on the positive side, what might we do if we really believed that we had enough?

How can the Cabinet save money without cutting a D.S.?
Why did we eliminate a District Superintendent position? There are various reasons why this might be a good idea. Within the single West Michigan Conference, there have already been two proposals to go to five districts. Perhaps five districts are enough, given our current smaller membership and the increased ability to "superintend at a distance" thanks to the Internet. In a new Michigan-wide conference, careful thought will need to go in to the district boundaries.
But both proposals to shrink failed. Arguments were made both times that the work of a District Superintendent is already burdensome, and that increasing the size of the districts by 20% would either make the workload overwhelming or severely impact the quality of service.
So why this time, and why by administrative fiat rather letting the Conference decide? The answer seems clear enough:* CF&A said "You need to cut your budget," and seeing no other options, the Cabinet made the difficult decision to move one D.S. to a church and give the others each 1/5 of the Heartland District. Redistricting seemed premature with the likely move to form a new conference.
What could they have done if everyone on the Cabinet seriously believed that they had enough? A simple solution would have been to cut each D.S.'s salary. This kind of thing happens all the time in a small business: when there's a bad year, the boss takes a salary cut, sometimes a significant one.
I don't mean this as an attack on the Cabinet. Taking a voluntary pay cut is, in America, a very strange idea. But for people who take Matthew 6 seriously, it's a very reasonable one. I cannot imagine Jesus recommending that someone who is already overworked should increase their workload rather than take a pay cut that still keeps them at the high end of the income scale.

*Caveat: I was not present for any of the discussions leading to the Cabinet's decision. This is how it appears to me. I'm quite open to being corrected on any of this, including the "workload" - I have heard that Superintendents are overworked, but I don't know that I've ever heard that from an actual Superintendent.

What could we do if we all believed that we had enough?
As leaders begin to recognize their wealth, options grow. If followers are also willing to live simply, the options increase even more. But for now, let's take one simple example: what if the 150 clergy with the highest incomes in the WMC were to donate 1% of their income to a student-loan payoff fund? This would generate over $75,000 annually to pay off loans for recent seminary graduates. That would be one way to create an incentive for new clergy to join our conference... and that's with just a 1% donation. Alternatively, if every clergy in the WMC donated 10% of their "above minimum" salary - if they viewed money over minimum as a gift to be shared - this would generate over $160,000 for student loan payoffs.
Neither of these is a complete proposal. Among other things, we would need checks to make sure that recent graduates didn't abuse our system. We might not decide that helping to pay off student debt is the best use of our funds. But it does demonstrate the kinds of things that can be done if we start believing that we have enough.

What do you think?
Do you think it is reasonable to ask church leaders to give more of their income to promote the common good? What might we do if clergy donated significant additional amounts of their income?