Or starve to death in the streets because your system will only "work" (and I'm not sure it will actually work even in the best conditions) if the total number of jobs available equal the active population, which is not the case in most countries. Soviet Russia already had trouble providing a job for each citizen, and it was a communist state...
And good luck surviving if you happen to lose your job. Suddenly, you find yourself without ANY income, and if you don't have a family (ie, wealthy parents / siblings) to back you up, you're basically left for dead, unless you are able to quickly find a new job.
Also, the "rich people pay more because 10 % of 100 000 € is larger than 10 % of 10 000 €" point is moot... of course if you take the absolute value, rich people pay more. But the goal is to make everyone participate at the same level : otherwise some will have considerable difficulties paying their taxes (imagine someone who earn 1000 € a month but have to pay 1500 € of taxes..) and other won't even notice it.
That should be the same for fines also, because if you're rich, you can basically park anywhere you want or drive at the speed you want (hopefully, it never happens, but it could), because hey, what is a 150 € fine when you earn 20 000 € a month ? Definitely worth the extra speed.
OR, you get a society with rich people being encouraged to stat their businesses, as they don't face the need to part with larger and larger part of their income the more successful they are. Which creates jobs.
Then you get people who WANT to work more, because they always need to pay just a fixed amount in taxes, so earning more equals exactly owning more.
On top of that, you get a society which encourages starting large families, and having family life, not because the government is spending millions on promoing such a lifestyle, but because people want to have somebody to turn to, should they get unlucky at some point in their lives. This creates more taxpayers and saves on another wasteful governmental spending.
If you also cut on welfare and healthcare, you won't have people happily living their lives as parasites. The money that stays thus in welthy taxpayer's pocket, will be spent, among other things, on creating new jobs AND charity, which takes care of all those who really are in need of help, again without all the wastefulness of centralized organization that the welfare system is.
Also, why is the goal to make everyone "participate on the same level"? Whence does this idea come from? I suppose that some people think that taxes are some kind of divine punishment sent upon this world, so equality means that everyone should suffer the same. This is so very wrong. Equality means everyone owes to the country the same, literally, so you don't punish successful people for being just that - successful.
That comment on fines, it's about the same fallacy. You think that paying taxes is the same as paying fines, i.e. it's a punishment. On another note, fines are where linear taxation of income would work just about right. You break the law, so you have to pay, let's say 1% of your yearly income in taxes, at the end of the taxyear. It's a good idea here, again, because it's a punishment.
And the last thing, is the communists comment: you somehow fail to notice that what communists did was tax everybody at 100% so that they could provide for the poor(which now was also everybody). This wasn't very efficient, because centralized spending of revenues is always going to be ridden with corruption, nepotism and a general feeling that everybody's money is nobody's money, so it's ok to steal some, or at least manage carelessly. This is also the case today, people haven't changed. If you increase revenues to fund more government-run areas of society's life, you'll get the same type of beurocratic wastefulness that brought communism(as an idea) down.
What I'm proposing is to let the rich keep their money. They won't put in their sockets and bury in their gardens - they will spend it and invest it. When the rich get richier, so does the society.
Since I'm at it, I'd like to point out how I despise that Robin Hood mentality. Robin Hood is the personification of progressive tax system. He takes(robs) from the wealthy(poor pay less, and very poor are often exempt from paying taxes thanks to "personal allowances"), deducts some amount to pay for food and pleasantries for his jolly company(bureaucracy support and wastefulness), then gives away the rest to the "poor"(i.e.people living off welfare, and defending Robin because he provides them with easy and effortless source of income). Nobody cares if the now-penniless merchant which happened upon Robbin' Hoodlum has to fire all five of his servants, won't be able to buy resources for his small manufacture, and being unable to pay off the debt that he took to start his business, he'll join the ranks of poor uneployed people, together with his servants, his family, his ex-workers, and maybe also local barber and theater troupe, who until recently had paying customers. Ultimately, all of them will end up turning to Robin for help.
tl;dr;
Robin must go.
@chaoticag: that's assuming that those taxes would be somehow higher than they are now. All you need is to reduce spending instead of looking for new ways to rob people of their money.