That's perfectly fine. Ratings are supposed to be a long-term metric. If someone is lower/higher rated only because they haven't played as many games, they will eventually reach the proper rating if they play long enough.
Although you *do* have the problem that you mentioned in the very beginning, that problem goes away once you're more experienced and played lots of games. There's no way to be able to fix this problem properly when someone hasn't played any games yet.
Someone else can correct me on this, but I believe this is why USCF has provisional ratings. The provisional tag here basically says that this person may suffer this problem, and the tag is removed once they get enough experience, and enough data from games to have a more accurate rating.
is it toooo much to ask to just standardize a win point for both players?
I noticed that when i play against a player with higher ranking , i get to receive a bigger point, say, +8... But when he beats me, the player only gets a lower point (+5, +7, etc.)...
Sure, one could reason out, well "i had a lower rating so i should get a bigger point because i beat someone "better""... But that's not the point. Some players get to receive a higher rating because they might have been playing longer than someone with a lower rating... Hence, the one with a higher ranking doesn't really mean he's BETTER... Case in point... If Kasparov joins the pool, he'd be starting with the lowest possible ranking... But are those in the 1800s rating REALLY better than him... Don't think so...