Judging by the way the question is phrased, and by the fact that you said "if both are equal" I think you mean to ask "why the disparity"--as in why the difference--and not "why the parity"--as in why the equality.

Now if you really do mean why the disparity, then I'll tell you that I've also consisered this a few times. And in fact it was one of the first things I considered when I started blogging on musing three days ago. What I noticed, you see, was the relatively lower qualities of the questions compared to the answers. And I could only assume that this disparity has something to do with it.

So I asked a question on it then at the time, and found that most musers were comfortable with the difference. Their argument then basically was that:

1. Answers take longer to write than questions.

2. Answers are more important.

3. Questions doesn't reaquire much thoughts.

Now I'd like to respectfully disagree with all these to an extent. Yes answers take longer to write, but surely length is not the only important criteria in determining quality. I'll have you know that in fact questions may require even more thought to injected in its conception, phrasing, and execution than even some answers. Really just because something is just two sentences long doesn't mean ruminating on it hasn't caused more deep thought than some verbose circumlocution that might not even mean a thing. Knowing how to put things concisely and compactly is a lot harder than writing a million words that mean nothing!

And finally, are answers really more important on musing than the questions? Of course not!

Without the questions there is no such thing as the answers. Imagine a scenerio where everyone on musing decides that because it is more rewarding to write long answers we stop asking questions. What happens? The platform dries up and nobody can write any answer.

Also, the qualities of the question matter a lot. If the platform is ever going to be worth something, people must ask the kinds of questions that will bring similar people who has that kind of question. For example I found out about Quora not by going on the site myself and asking a question. But by coming across a question that I had that was already asked by a person on quora in a Google search.

It is a good thing now that to view a question on steemit you must come to musing.io, because if a question on musing show up in Google searches as a steemit blog, then inquirers can follow the steemit link to musing.io. But imagine if all we have here is questions about what color the sky is.

Yes, no question is really useless if you think about it, but certainly you'd agree that some questions are more important and more relevant than some.

Which is what brings me to my main point:

I'm not saying questions should receive as much rewards as answers. Like I said there really are some brilliant answers here that deserve a lot more than questions, BUT what I'm asking for is more of a disparity in the amount of upvote given to good questions relative to the ones that are not as good.

Lets say a really good question gets $1.5, an average one gets about $0.45 and a not so good question gets nothing. Musers who see this disparity will be motivated to ask the good questions. And they will be motivated not even because of the high rewards ($1.5 isn't so high) but because of the high disparity, the difference, between the good question and the not-so-good ones. Why settle for 0 when you can get 1.5.

Luckily I came across something on @jonching's page that seems to suggest that he doesn't disparage the importance of questions like most musers. Hopefully along the line we get to see more high quality questions and even higher quality answers.

Cheers.