So if Rasmus Lerdorf joined Stack Overflow today (rep 1) and answered a basic PHP question from me (rep 788), he should get more rep because compared to me he's a ahem "noob"...?
As has been stated, rep in no way reflects knowledge. I've seen really high rep users answer really badly and incorrectly, and vice-versa.
High rep could have been gained from good knowledge and constantly obtaining many up votes from good answers, but it can also be from mediocre to low knowledge and basic answers but over a long time they accumulate a lot of odd up vote here and there.
And a mishmash mixture of in-between all that, which makes it nearly impossible to design, implement and maintain what you propose and remain fair and a decent system.
What of high rep users (50k+) - they get a pittance for answering the simpler questions? So while you'd potentially gain more rep and rank up more quickly, we'd lose great answers from the high rep people on simple questions as they might be offended and wouldn't bother.
With daily activity old Rasmus wouldn't need more than half a week to catch my rep, so giving him more rep to begin with but then after a little while then giving me more rep answering him [unlikely to happen] sounds to me like a potential for an obscure imbalance in rep.
I don't want to see people unnaturally gain high rep. It is not fair or how a system should work.