We Have Tax Brackets, but We Don’t Have Philanthropy Bracket or Selfishness Brackets

W1 has its own sets of mathematics (certain W1 mathematics describe the physical world). W2 and W3 have their own sets of mathematics, but thoughts, meanings, and feelings are not easily quantifiable. W2 and W3 mathematics are personal, yet people have a lot in common.
Our current socioeconomic system completely ignores W2 and W3 mathematics. Tax system, for instance, has a lot of mathematical formula for calculating tax. Tax is not a loose term, but philanthropy is a loose term. We have tax brackets, but we don’t have philanthropy brackets, selfishness brackets, love brackets, or hate brackets. Why philanthropy shouldn't be well defined mathematically. What percentage of philanthropist’ asset was donated and how it served others’ preferences. Philanthropy is also a mathematical relationship between the value of fulfillment of your own preferences and those of others’ preferences. Why selfishness shouldn't be bracketed. Why hate shouldn’t be bracketed? Why shouldn’t companies, billionaires, and millionaires who are hiding behind trusts (and various means to conceal their wealth) not be evaluated by selfishness brackets?
Our current socioeconomic system encourages winner-takes-it-all attitude. Winner takes it all is also a mathematical relationship. Capitalism is a machine that generates wealth, but by some adjustments, it can spread the wealth more beautifully. Currently, a minority enjoys capitalism’s wealth disproportionately. Different adjustments such as higher tax may spread the generated wealth to majority. Even if such adjustments make the whole system less efficient, still the whole system could be much more beautiful.
There is a mathematics of beauty. The feeler has some inclination toward certain proportions. There are some golden ratios for our species. Historically, the ancient and native tribes used to invade other tribes if they become disproportionately wealthy. Some proportions are ugly or intolerable, and some proportions are preferable. People can reach a consensus about the mathematics of beauty. For instance, no human being under any circumstances should own more than y times of the poorest. The minority of winners (who take it all) justifies inequality by the benefits of the system, but nothing can justify ugliness. Many beautiful systems can be devised. Even if such socioeconomic systems have lower efficiency), they provide much better human experiences for the majority. Nezman accepts inequality, but extreme inequality is ugly by any standard.