Number is not Utopian nor a panacea

Number is not a panacea nor Utopian, but it sure helps to measure whether the beneficiaries of any policy, law, or other government activity or program is democratic or not. We already resort to 'counting' and 'Number' in Taxation, home ownership, jobs, employment, percentages, racial distributions, gender distributions, etc., so why not extend those practices to judge whether any governmental policy, program, or law, includes or excludes everyone who is supposed to be included or excluded? For example: A family man living in a small home earns $30,000 a year and pays taxes on that amount. Another, earns $200,000 a year and pays taxes on that amount. A corporation earns $500 million a year and pays taxes on that amount. Do all three pay the same percentage of taxes a year? Should the tax be equal or should it be increased among the more fortunate? Is it possible for a corporation not to pay any taxes at all. It sure is possible and to add salt to the wound, a corporation is a "legal fiction", which means its not human, not real, ( like Alice in Wonderland, its not real) and the law recognizes that fiction, and further treats it as a "person" under the Constitution. This 'legal move' increases a corporations 'economic grasp' tremendously. That, in of itself, should be considered a 'great gift' of government, so why increase the advantages of a corporate "fiction" to further create tax loop holes in the law that allows it not to pay taxes? Is that a 'fair playing field'? Do you see the advantage of quantifying democracy by using Number to balance "freedom" and "equality" of every individual(real ones)in a real way. If the essence of democracy is the real individual at the Bottom of government, why give tax advantages to 'fictional persons' and not to real persons. The same rules could apply to the availability of jobs, employment and home ownership. Democracy does not require that everyone earn the same amount of money, or that everyone own the same amount of property, but it does demand a 'fair playing field'.