I don't think that would help. Chinese is very heavy on homophones and the characters allow meaning differentiation. In spoken Chinese you have to rely on context. Written and spoken Chinese seem tightly coupled.
But it's obviously not necessary, because all writing still has just as much context as speech does. The fact that you need the context less doesn't somehow make it go away.
However, if I were Chinese, I might worry that due to simplicity, the phonetically-written Chinese would eclipse the traditionally-written Chinese quickly. Those sentences which only make sense in traditionally-written, not spoken or phonetically-written Chinese, would obviously be a huge cultural loss. Not everything is about making business more efficient.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.zompist.com/yingzi/yingzi.htm
One interesting thing I learned from it the logographic aspects of written Chinese have influenced spoken Chinese by encouraging short, phonetically-ambiguous abbreviations that tend to replace the original phonetically-distinct words.
> Those sentences which only make sense in traditionally-written, not spoken or phonetically-written Chinese, would obviously be a huge cultural loss.
That's already happened to a degree. The Chinese dropped written Classical Chinese for written Mandarin, which is based on a vernacular. That's akin to the West dropping written Latin in favor of vernacular writing. I understand Classical Chinese needs to be translated to be understood.