Arguably not. The progressive tax bracket system means that a bare minimum amount of money (up to the lowest threshold) is available basically tax free to cover necessities and then everything above that is effectively profit for an individual. Living in an expensive house, eating expensive foods, raising a well resourced family aren't really expenses in the sense that businesses have expenses. If they were like business expenses people would try to minimise them, whereas most people I know actually try to maximise those costs when you look at what decisions they make. I've never convinced anyone with arguments that they should move into a cheaper house to save money. In that sense, both systems are philosophically the same but people have very low necessary expenses.
Almost an aside, but taxing people only on their savings would be truly bizarre. Someone measurably adds more to the economy than they consume and they are the ones who get shafted with tax? Ethically a case could be made, but practically the incentives are so nutty I'd hope it doesn't warrant serious discussion.
Taxing corporate revenue rather than profit would cause price increases and act like a consumption tax. Certainly possible, but that is a regressive tax policy and generally frowned upon.