| This takes such a short-sighted, illogical view of the underlying mechanics that tax expenditures and tax breaks rely on. In the case of SNAP, you are eligible for those benefits if you are below a certain % of the federal poverty limit (FPL) based on your household size. If you earn more than a certain amount, you no longer qualify because presumably you should be able to pay for food on your own. This very directly says, "We will give you something of monetary value, if you remain poor." In the case of a tax break, like contributing to your HSA or IRA, you don't have to pay taxes on that income (or at least not now). You can contribute up to a certain amount each year but beyond that you no longer receive that benefit. This very directly says, "We will give something of monetary value, if you save money." Both are using government funds to encourage behavior "We will give you something of monetary value, if you [perform some behavior]." I would suggest that the intended behavior is fundamentally different and is where the real difference in these two lie. Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions based on the tone of the article, but the author seems to indicate that both scenarios are equally problematic, when I think there is a very logical difference. Both achieve a similar short-term net output - $X in potential taxes not remaining in the government. The difference is about whether the $X creates long-term value that exceeds that value and she seems to gloss over that to drum up a controversial article. Edit: I'm not suggesting that either breaks of expenses are inherently better than the other. For example, an earned income credit, to me, seems to encourage a behavior that would be in line with the motives behind a tax break. I just think this is a very short-sighted analysis of both ideas and serves only to create controversy. |