Unfortunately, I plainly disagree. On both of them.
The current system does give an insensitive to “professionalism”.
The 50 M of penalities are not a lot, but they are still leaving a bad taste when it happens.
But, a full on objectives might be too much. Even more if it gives that much rewards.
Currently the civilian collateral are a “darn it, well let’s move on”, and not a “I need to curate everything, it’s an objective in left corner after all, and enough M to but a tool later on”.
Which I think is good.
The collateral is only to civilians, and leave guards free for the taking. Which I think is fair, without removing too much of the open possibilities. Removing that distinction for a simple “no collateral” would diminish it, in my point of view.
It’s nonetheless true that this could still have the same restriction.
On a more personal note :
I’m starting to have progressed enough that I can bring “bonus” tools with me. One of them is usually one of the duckies. They are well represented in the tool crates. And they are becoming my “sod that one” tool, for when a target is just in plain public.
The duckies also cost 500 M. And almost always cause collateral. The way I use them at least. It’s the duckies : legal to place, legal to throw, will be taken by the civilian targets instead of calling the guard. It’s frankly their role.
Your proposition would make it way too costly to play with.
As far as payout goes : the start of the game is slow. I won’t deny that.
But again, once you start to have a solid foundation on your weapon wall, you then mostly pay for tools to use, leaving weapons to be rewards. At this point the payouts are good. Enough to buy one or two per contracts. Not so much to trivialize it.