My fiance likes to play that way, or some flavor of it... think it might just be luxury and income tax that she throws into the pot.
Personally, I hate the rule, though as a kid sometimes we played that way. The game is actually pretty well designed to be balanced in certain ways; in particular, the amount net worth that is in play tends to rise at a particular rate through the course of the game, mostly in the form of passing Go and collecting salary. Chance, community chest, and the tax spaces, are a mixed bag of gains and losses, and on average, don't generally increase the net worth of the board, especially early in the game.
Putting the pay portions of those spaces into a pot (which someone sooner or later collects), but having the collect portions still come from the bank throws that system out of balance, on top of creating a hyper-variable distribution of wealth that wasn't originally meant to be included in the game. Though the "winning the lottery" feeling of it is nice in a sense, it adds a great deal of randomness to the game, and makes it much harder to force other plays into bankruptcy due to the large net worth injection it creates.
Many monopoly games include various FAQs with their instructions, one of which comments on the number of houses and hotels included with a standard set. The basic point is that it's quite intentionally not enough to cover every property at maximum development, because if you could, it would be too difficult to eventually force a player into bankruptcy.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the game Monopoly. I think, on one hand, the proliferation of "house rules" such as the one described in the OP, tend to break the game mechanics pretty badly, and make the game much more of a crap-shoot than about strategy. (Which is okay if that's the kind of game you like, but it's just not for me.)
On the other hand, the game has a terrible tendency--especially with smaller numbers of players, and even with house rules in place--to suffer from situations where the game is over long before it actually ends. In spite of randomness of dice rolls and the like, there often comes a point where the property distribution is such that some players are all but guaranteed to win, and some others are all but guaranteed to lose. House rules actually make this worse, since the bleeding takes longer at that point.
Not really related to the rules or anything, and maybe it's just me, but in my experience the game of Monopoly has the amazing ability to cause family members to bicker, yell, and whine immaturely when they don't win. The last time I played, after defeating my DF, I was told (tongue in cheek) that it was only because I "don't play right"; a statement regarding my willingness to engage in trades and deals. I simply pointed out (also tongue in cheek) that, having won the game, it seems I did play right.
