You bring up an interesting point.

An asset allocation like you currently have is pretty much optimal over the long term.

What a lot of people don’t understand is that while bonds don’t have the same average return as equities, since bonds a) typically move inversely to stocks while b) providing a constant income stream with c) much lower “risk” (volatility) an asset allocation such as yours actually outperforms (obviously a pure bond portfolio and) a pure stock portfolio.
 
Hypothetically going 100% T would net you a nice dividend stream but in all likely hood very little capital appreciation...at least not S&P500 type returns...but your total return (capital gains+dividends) could be more than the S&P.

Another factor is your age.  As has already been at least implied in this thread, “if you’re young, go for broke (pun of sorts)...you have the rest of your life to make it back up.  Invest conservatively when you’re old because you can’t afford to lose a lot.”

Guess what?  One really can’t make up for the lost earning power and compounding of lost capital and here’s a simple example of how/why.  You have $10,000 invested and you lose 20%.  Your remaining capital ($8,000) now has to go up 25% just to get back to even.

When I was young I had a mentor tell me just the opposite:  invest conservatively at first, until you get a “base”, then start to take on more risk in an attempt at greater returns.

No matter what, that relatively conservative base is growing and providing income with which to purchase more stocks/bonds.

IOW, if you do it right (my father as did I both did it on a single incomes), a more conservative early approach may build a base that allows you to take a more aggressive approach later (and possibly for the rest of your) life.

My point is, depending on where you are age and savings-wise, you may or may not want to invest more aggressively and one doesn’t necessarily have to invest hyper-aggressively early on in order to do “OK” in the long run.

To (finally) tie this back into your question, investing more for dividends rather than capital growth is usually a pretty good strategy.  In fact, it was a great strategy over the last few decades (until Trump was elected) of slow growth and low interest rates (since low interest rates tend to drive people into dividend-paying stocks as surrogates for bonds)...and interest rates now are even lower.

Another example (using T of which just today I added additional shares to an existing position and about this time last month I added VZ to my portfolio for...wait for it...the dividend):  why would I buy a 30-year T-Bond paying 1.2% (even this time last year it was about 3%) when I could buy T with a dividend of almost 6.7% (or VZ at 4.2%)?  Someone may point out that there are reasons for buying the T-Bond, but the yield isn’t one of them.

Why did I just add VZ and T (along with a few other high dividend defensive stocks and closing out several of my growth stock positions)?  IMO we are now in a CoVID-induced slow growth phase which, depending on who wins the next election, may last at best at least several months as this unwinds itself and quite possible a couple of decades under the rule of democrats.

A long way of saying having a 10-20% bond position in your portfolio will dampen out volatility while providing return; a high dividend approach is usually not bad and actually good during times of slow/low growth and/or low interest rates; while it might look interesting to go 100% T or some other high dividend stock, I would look at a high dividend ETF like SPYD.

Jaqufrost addressed this in his post:  your strategy is backwards.  You want the dividend paying stocks in your tax-advantaged accounts and your capital appreciation stocks in your taxable account.

Otherwise, as jaqufrost states, you are forced to pay taxes on your dividends.  In your taxable account, you won’t be taxed unless you decide to sell something.

Because for the same amount of invested capital he is getting 3x in dividends.

As we’ve all said, there are other factors (age, taxes, etc.) and methods (dividends vs. growth stocks) but that 3x is what OP is asking about.

Would I do or recommend that?  No, and we’ve all explained why.

A better IMO method would be something like SPYD in the tax-advantaged account and, given OP’s question, S&P500 or similar in his taxable account (noting that the div yield of the S&P500 is still 2% so one might not want even (self-included) that in their taxable account).