I've come across this problem before - what the problem really is is the inappropriate use of proportional savings ($5 is a higher proportion of $15 than of $125) when the attention should be on the absolute savings ($5 in either case) because of the way the problem was framed. The way the problem was presented in this post actually obscures this point.
What use of proportional / absolute savings exactly is appropriate? Can you be more specific in which point is obscured by the framing?
From Tversky and Khaneman's "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice" (Science, Vol. 211, No. 4481, 1981):
This one's a killer. Money is supposed to be fungible, but these observations really highlight how difficult it is to really behave as if you believed that. So, aspiring rationalists, how might we combat this in ourselves? Maybe it would help to consciously convert between money and time: if you value your time at 25 $/hr, then the cost of a twenty-minute drive is 25 $/hr * (1/3) hr = $8.33 > $5, so you buy the calculator in front of you in either case. So this heuristic at least takes care of the calculator problem, although I would guess it fails miserably in other contexts, I currently know not which.
Another takeaway lesson is to ignore advertisements boasting that a product is currently such-and-such percent off. We don't care about the percentage! How many minutes are you saving?