The basic problem with the OP’s proposal is that the system should be fair.
To use an analogy that I think was originally due to Bricker : We’re playing Monopoly. I think that the common houserule of “get money for landing on Free Parking” is a bad idea that accomplishes nothing but slowing down the game. As we’re starting the game, therefore, I argue that we shouldn’t agree to use that houserule, but a lot of other folks like it. One of the proponents of the houserule says “Well, here’s a compromise: Whenever any of us land on Free Parking, we’ll get money, like we want, and whenever you land on Free Parking, you can choose not to get money, like you want.”. Would anyone consider this a reasonable compromise?
And now, suppose that we do play a game with the Free Parking money rule, and I go ahead and collect money whenever I land on it, like everyone else. The next game, I say “Well, you saw how long that game took-- Will you believe me now that that’s a bad rule?”. And one of the proponents says “You’re a hypocrite! You say you don’t like that rule, but last game you collected money anyway!”. Is this a reasonable criticism?
We want the rules to be changed, but until they are, we want what rules we have to apply the same to everyone.
Whenever someone says “If Buffett doesn’t think certain loopholes are good for society he shouldn’t use those loopholes himself” I want to … [checks forum: are we in the Pit? No] click Reply and say “You’re Wrong.”