if so, forgoing revenues in such a scenario would consequently lead to such people advocating for even less spending, and/or higher taxes on the rest of us, even if we'd rather have the spending and also higher taxes on the parties in question

tl;dr: Your comment is based on the fallacy that a) government spending can't be maintained at current levels while simultaneously removing this loophole and taxing the parties in question

I wish there were some good write ups on money printing after the 2008 crash. Theoretically that should lead to higher inflation, which it didn't until now (and for different reasons).

So yes established theory used to be that spending should match revenues, with the difference being made up by inflation essentially. What the latest thinking is, and the implications of that I don't know.

By and large you need a relatively small amount of money to inflate an asset. The difference between all bitcoins being worth $10k each or being worthless is potentially just one person willing to pay that $10k for only one.