My species have an average lifespan of 500 years. In the first 20 years and the last 30 years, they age normally, but for the rest, they appear barely to age at all. If we were to compare them to humans, which have an average lifespan of 80 years, a member of this species at 470 would look like a 50 year old human and at 500 they'd look like an 80-year-old human.

This would mean that they have roughly 90% productive age compare to about 50% for humans, if we assume that both species spend the first 25 years learning and the last 15 years resting.

Bonus detail: This species has a low and steady population growth rate, to avoid economic problems from overpopulation.

Here is my prediction about potential differences in their economy:

* The tax for healthcare & pension would be lower. I think even a relatively small tax over 90% productive age would offset the cost of that 10% vulnerable age.
* The tax for education however would be higher, as the population needs to be re-educated constantly. Otherwise they would be stagnant, outdated, and therefore useless for the rest of their long life.
* The government would likely invest in more massive infrastructure and scientific projects, since the benefits could potentially be reaped within individuals' lifespans.
* Business companies would be more likely to favor long term investments and business models. They'll prefer a low but steady profit instead of high and quick profit for stability of their company. As a result, a cheaper product.
* Borrowing would be easier, since it could be expected to return in a reasonable timeframe.

Are these prediction accurate enough based on the working of our own economic systems? Did I miss something? Or even get something completely wrong?

To avoid the question becoming too broad, lets focus on how the government and business would likely behave in this economic situation, in general terms of course.

### Clarification

Since many people seems to be confused and even pointing out that economic policy is too subjective and broad, I think I need to show the viewers my thought about economy. So here's what I thought: In some place where you have beautiful scenery or historical landmark, USUALLY the government would make a policy to took advantage of that condition, like making it a tourism destination and build transportation infrastructure on that. The business also react accordingly by making investment on hotel, souvenir shop, or another tourist attraction. Of course the government could demolish that place to make athletic center and business could simply build a shoe factory on it, if they found it fit with their business model, but isn't this an exception not the rule?

### Back to my question

If your species have a longer lifespan, shouldn't your government and business company react accordingly, like the prediction I gave you above, or maybe they would react the other way around, or maybe truly they would ignore that fact since they found no correlation between lifespan and economy?