I see where you are coming from. But, it’s not that the treasury is getting all the upside from risk-taking and none of the downside. They are getting both: tax revenues when the risk pays off, and none when it fails.
I understand that they can go back and say, basically, we’re going to widen the timeframe from 1 year to 5 years. But that is pretty arbitrary, since the timeframe has always been 1 year, and it’s 1 year for individuals and for cautious businesses in good times. The net effect is that it’s only going to be done in a time and manner that disproportionately helps the “high flyers.”
I should add that they aren’t commensurately cutting back spending. They are spending the same (actually far more) while reducing tax revenues, meaning that they will have to make up for it in the future via higher taxes (on producers) or via inflation (punishing savers). So again, it’s disproportionately taking from the prudent and competent and giving to the reckless and less competent. It’s the old capitalist argument; resources should be marshalled by those who are most competent to use them effectively in the long term, and this has the opposite effect.
All that said I acknowledge that this is small time compared to some of the shenanigans that they have undertaken. It’s just particularly comical and backwards in how it manifests itself with the builders.
