[quote=Rich Toscano]davelj, I’m not suggesting that anyone would want to switch places with Robert Toll.

My point is that this is another example where when the times were good, the less cautious benefitted… and now that times are bad, their losses are subsidized.

Agreed, nowhere near as egregious as the TARP but this is clearly (to me anyway) another example of rewarding failure and encouraging risky behavior (whether it works or not).

rich[/quote]

I’m going to nitpick just a bit on this point.

If, in fact, Toll Brothers’ outsized profits in the “good years” were a result of being “less cautious,” and these profits were the ones that were taxed in the earlier periods… then when the same “less cautious” behavior led to outsized losses… what’s wrong with the tax impact being, essentially, neutralized? My point is… why should the Treasury benefit from Toll Brothers’ risk-taking in the good years, but then cap Toll Brothers’ benefit (or recapture) in the bad years?

And this doesn’t just apply to Toll Brothers. If reckless risk-taking makes the Treasury richer during good times, why shouldn’t it have to return those riches in the bad times? Otherwise, one could argue that it’s the government (that is, We the People) that wants all of the upside from risk-taking (from a tax perspective), but none of the downside.

(On a separate note, Rich, I’m eating a chicken donor from the kebab shop right now… and it’s garlicy deliciousness is soaking into my pores. Yummm.)