This takes such a short-sighted, illogical view of the underlying mechanics that tax expenditures and tax breaks rely on.<p>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, &quot;We will give you something of monetary value, if you remain poor.&quot;<p>In the case of a tax break, like contributing to your HSA or IRA, you don&#x27;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, &quot;We will give something of monetary value, if you save money.&quot;<p>Both are using government funds to encourage behavior &quot;We will give you something of monetary value, if you [perform some behavior].&quot; I would suggest that the intended behavior is fundamentally different and is where the real difference in these two lie.<p>Perhaps I&#x27;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.<p>Edit: I&#x27;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.