There should be an alternative to the Buffett Rule being kicked around in Washington: Do good with your money and get a tax break.

Sure the Buffett Rule stipulates that wealthy people should pay more, or a minimum in taxes. But taxes are penalties. Tax breaks are incentives.

Incentives where people can invest in social enterprises that create positive change in a community or for the planet should be just as much a part of the current economic ethos as tax hikes.

The massive debt the U.S. is carrying may prevent any tax breaks from being contemplated. But the connection between the very wealthy and the social service that social enterprises provide can't be ignored. Whether by creating new health-care clinics, education facilities or clean energy, there is a social value to the current slate of the so-called impact investments here and abroad.

The U.S. does not have the luxury that Scandinavian countries afford their populations--great health care, education, and welfare programs-largely because we don't tax as much. And the backlash over the Buffett Rule, which applies only to the very wealthiest of the U.S. population, proves that raising taxes isn't a popular measure by any economic segment.

So why not go in the opposite direction? Foster social impact and promote financial impact through programs that solve the problems the government can no longer afford to fix-the water infrastructure and quality problem, the dirty fuel problem, the education problem, the healthcare problem and so many more.

Complaints of socialism can be muffled if the free market was targeted toward doing good in the world. Slap an investment proposition and a tax break on solving the world's ills and see how quickly investors will jump to the occasion.

As it stands, many wealthy people divide their interests: They profit, then they give to charity a percentage of those profits. In fact, at a recent hedge fund conference I attended, this was cited as standard practice by several investors I spoke with. For such sophisticated investors, it's a stupid strategy. For one thing, it's not systematic, and therefore it's destined for failure. What happens when profits suffer? So too do the charitable organizations sustained by those profits. It's like only funding your retirement in good times. Devise a sustainable impact investing strategy on the other hand, and sure there may be ups and downs--but nothing is abandoned.

There should be another option for wealthy people beside the Buffett Rule. They should be able to do good with their money and invest in businesses that create jobs, help the environment and provide social value. It would be a giveback, not a giveaway.