IMO only if you adhere to a peak-based maximisation, and hyper-compressed, paradigm. There is really no audible improvement in consistently pushing peaks to between 0 and -0.5 dBTP as you recommend, at least certainly not as a blanket recommendation for all types of music programme.
It reduces the risk of ADDITIONAL subsequent distortion (within D/As and encoding processes)
Would you not agree that you might do far better by concentrating on the loudness and dynamic range of the audio rather than the peaks? The ear responds to loudness and dynamic range far more than peaks, so taking care of these elements is probably far more important than peak maximisation. You could let the odd peak hit -0.5 dBTP, but -1dBTP seems a reasonably good target for the majority of the time.
This would be ideal but we live in this real world and this means that we have to deal with the current situation and this is LOUDNESS WAR 
Seriously you would loose 99% of your clients as mastering engineer if you would go for the ideal approach.
Surely, the EBU recommendation (-1dBTP) is chosen from the point of view of protection ie: ensuring that inter-sample peak distortion is avoided in the reproduction chain, or if the master was to be converted to a lossy format at a later date. > It is not some kind of manner in which we can apply a peak-based paradigm to a loudness meter. > Peak level settings as applied when using peak meters and peak-based mixing habits ceases to have the same relevance in the world of loudness meters. Clearly, an EBU R-128 meter is firmly concentrated upon the loudness values, and in this setting the peak values become secondary, and somewhat arbitrary, (although never to be completely ignored). Where you set your loudness values and how much compression you use are of course different discussions entirely.
[/quote]
Once again. This is the idea and basic concept of R128 and this is the future. But this will never ever work for CD releases.
I am happy to be not alone as a dynamic warrior