Your logic is correct. It really depends on what you meant: whether you wanted to mean that 100K is 1) reasonable or 2) unreasonable. You said: "Now I am not

Your logic is correct. It really depends on what you meant: whether you wanted to mean that 100K is 1) reasonable or 2) unreasonable. You said: "Now I am not saying that you should be paying yourself 200K a year out of the gate, but I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." "Now I am not saying that you should be paying yourself 200K a year out of the gate" --- (1) "but" --- (2) "I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." --- (3) (1) implies that you think that he shouldn't overpay himself, and you followed that with a "but" (i.e. (2)), which suggested that the ensuing clause was going to be of the "you shouldn't underpay yourself either" nature/implication. Naturally, the next clause should be explaining what exactly you meant by underpaying. So that means you should either be setting a lower bound and saying that it's reasonable, i.e. "I think that anything above 100K is reasonable," or be setting an upper bound and saying that it's unreasonable, i.e. "I think that anything below 100K is unreasonable".