Antiseptic – With all due respect I am not assuming the outcome of anything and yes the concept is simple. Any solution must be able to be understood by all or it will create suspicion and division.

By saying your annual income will be limited by production is simple, economically sound and can be understood by everyone. To receive a share some meaningful participation is required. Saying the share you will receive will depend on how you participate is easily quantifiable. If sustainable productivity is at the higher end of reward production is encouraged although not guaranteed.

The concept is not even, an individual can still be wealthy, frugal or wasteful. Apart from the limitation to annual income described above there are no other limitations.

Give me one (singular, not multiple) example where you believe the above would be detrimental to society and why?

Apart from anything else, how do you define proportionality between work of different types?

That is reasonably easy to define.

The key revolves around sustainable productivity. Productive work attracts more reward than the parasite activity.
The farmer would make more than the lawyer takes.

The logic is, a world of lawyers is not possible as a parasite requires a host to survive. A world full of farmers will survive and flourish, parasites permitting.

This is a simplistic explanation and in reality where is complex nuances that would have to be considered but the concept is the same.

Yes, it is complex. I understand your sense that there are non-productive "parasites" doing far better than they have a right to, but as you acknowledge, how to arrange things so that doesn't happen, while maintaining social and economic freedom of choice isn't a trivial problem.