No I don't. I saw that line of reasoning but don't agree with it
For example, if I have a moving business and I have to pay three guys $60,000 a year and I take in $100,000 a year- I only get to keep $40,000 a year. If I were shareholders, we would split $40,000 per year.
The government has always recognized that costs of doing business are not part of your gross revenue. Other than occasional abuses, the government has never allowed buying of toys and cool cars to come off of gross revenue.
Businesses typically have net profit ratios of 3% to 7%. If you fined them based on their gross revenues, most would immediately be at a loss for the year. It's obviously unreasonable to bankrupt companies with fines. It's not good for society to constantly throw people out of work and destroy businesses that way.
At best with your line of reasoning, a fixed amount or deduction should be used. Because people overspend on cars, housing, clothing, food and only a base amount should be allowed to be ignored. A person shouldn't get a smaller speeding ticket because they bought a really nice house and an expensive sports car.
For people, fines are too high for the poor and too low for the rich. In some countries, they recognize this and fines are actually percentage based so a wealthy person can get a multithousand dollar speeding ticket while a poor person gets a fine for less than a middle income person.
But for middle income people- most fines are set based on their remaining income- not their gross income.