3 ms·

Instead of UBI, which many critics are fearful of, why not switch to a voucher system? The government gives everyone a voucher redeemable for $x for food, $x fo

Instead of UBI, which many critics are fearful of, why not switch to a voucher system? The government gives everyone a voucher redeemable for $x for food, $x for healthcare, etc., whatever forms of welfare we decide to provide as a society. Then private companies can register with the government as providers of these services and consumers can spend their vouchers wherever they want. This solution seems like it eliminates bureaucracy by switching to a market based system, provides a safety net for the entire population, and makes it harder to freeload.

andrewla 8y ago
> eliminates bureaucracy Okay -- so I register with the government as a "food provider", and I take food vouchers in exchange for non-food (like gasoline or something), and redeem them with the government for cash money. Who is making sure that I can't do that? We could have it strictly be an enforcement solution -- no bureaucracy, but a huge operational burden on the justice system. Or, more reasonably, I would have to submit to being regulated as a food provider, and would have to meet certain standards in order to do so, and would have to file appropriate paperwork to establish that I am doing so. Hell, as long as we're here, we might as well make sure that I only provide healthy food, according to what is currently thought of as healthy. Oh, and the cost of the food I sell has to be regulated; can't have me charging $20 for a hamburger, even if it is a "premium" one. Anyway, long rant, but in the end, the suggested system sounds like a mountain of bureaucracy and would probably cost way more to keep running than just giving the money directly to people.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  > I take food vouchers in exchange for non-food (like gasoline or something), and redeem them with the government for cash money. Who is making sure that I can't do that? You can't redeem the vouchers for cash, only for the good or service the vouchers are designated for. So a food voucher would let you redeem it for food. A healthcare voucher would allow you to pay a healthcare provider for whatever services you received. Edit: oh, you're saying you pretend to be a food provider. The solution to that seems simple. Lifetime ban from voucher funded industries for anyone caught doing that and forfeiture of 3x damages. That's just an example, but if you make the punishment great enough I doubt you'll have a problem with it. It seems like it's pretty easy to catch someone doing what you described. For one thing, you'd have to be registered as a business to even engage in the practice you describe. > I would have to submit to being regulated as a food provider, and would have to meet certain standards in order to do so, and would have to file appropriate paperwork to establish that I am doing so. Sure, but how do you think the welfare system works currently? You'll always have bureaucracy, but you can have it in greater or lesser degrees. I contend that my proposal would have less bureaucracy than what we currently have. You already have to register with several state agencies if you want to run a grocery store (at least in my state). Whole Foods doesn't find that too onerous. > Oh, and the cost of the food I sell has to be regulated; can't have me charging $20 for a hamburger, even if it is a "premium" one. No, that's the whole point of switching to a voucher/market based system. You as the service provider can charge whatever you want. The population, as recipients of the vouchers, can redeem them anywhere. If you charge $20 per hamburger you'll go out of business or change your prices.
  - andrewla 8y ago
    > You can't redeem the vouchers for cash, only for the good or service the vouchers are designated for You are misunderstanding the scenario. I am a food provider. Someone buys food from me for vouchers -- what do I do with those vouchers? I assume I exchange them for cash from the government, otherwise, I can't pay my rent or my employees or for cleaning products. The problem with not regulating the $20 hamburger is that I sell a $1 hamburger for $20 in vouchers, and slip the customer $18 in cash (that I replenish by redeeming the vouchers, as above). Yes, I'm committing fraud, and yes, if I get caught I'll get in trouble. But if fraud is widespread then it becomes impossible to detect. Yes -- this is how food stamp and EBT programs work now, but they work with huge amounts of bureaucracy, a stated non-goal in your system. So I don't really see a differentiation here between what you're offering and what food stamps already do (poorly).
    - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
      I realized that while you were replying and added an edit to my comment. Yes, I agree that's a problem, but you can reduce fraud by making the punishments severe enough. For instance: commit fraud, lifetime ban from the industry. I don't believe UBI is palatable to a majority of the population, but I believe a voucher based system could be if marketed appropriately.
nemo44x 8y ago
I think this would be a nice iteration on the concept of social welfare for all. The real advantage to money is that it is 100% fungible. By restricting what UBI can actually pay for (Class B money it could be called) this then limits abuse. Of course some will still abuse the system and trade their Class B money for less Class A money but there's a certain amount of fraud potential you simply need to accept, even while policing and enforcing the law.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Yeah, I don't think you can eliminate fraud entirely. But we already have fraud in our current welfare system.
pvg 8y ago
Because we already have these and the proponents of UBI argue radically transforming them by handing people money would be better. Money is already exactly such a 'voucher'.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  No, money you can spend anywhere. A voucher has to be spent on the thing it's designated for.
  - pvg 8y ago
    Right but as I said, the UBI people say 'that's overhead we can get rid of'. That's sort of the point. The thing you're proposing isn't that different from many existing forms of subsidy. In the US, for instance, you can get 'vouchers' specifically for buying food. Or specifically for buying a house.
    - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
      Yes, but UBI isn't politically palatable to many people (probably most people). More incremental reforms to the welfare system, like what I proposed, have a greater chance of being politically realizable.
      - pvg 8y ago
        Even incremental reform can be difficult and your reform is not that much less radical than UBI. And has some curious aspects - for example, your vouchers are actually more bureaucratic than SNAP/EBT.
truckerbill 8y ago
One counter argument to that are the organisational costs, which run against one of the central arguments for UBI - more efficient distribution of the welfare pot, due to the simplified, no questions asked system. As with current voucher systems, there would definitely arise a black market as people trade them for other goods. This leaves people vulnerable to being exploited. Finally I would personally argue that people should try and think less rigidly about what is considered a good use of money and time. Recreation as an end isn't an inherently bad thing - it would lead to a larger market for content creators if you want to think purely pragmatically. There are also many cases where buying a new computer or a bike, instead of more food, would be of greater benefit to a person and society as a whole. Partly with this in mind, you could argue vouchers restrict any unintended beneficial effects of financial freedom.
ryanmercer 8y ago
Voucher sounds like something that can be revoked. "You weren't a good citizen, you murdered. Vouchers revoked!" "You weren't a good citizen, you murdered. Vouchers revoked!" Some time later "You weren't a good citizen, you were speeding. Vouchers revoked!" Then of course you can have law enforcement at various levels, or even prosecutors, specifically seek out reasons to deny vouchers to any given person. Little bribe, little political promise, little threat and bam you've shit-listed someone. Or you get voucher-casualties via prejudice, "driving while black" traffic stops/arrests for example. Nope. Nope, that sounds too Soviet Russia.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  You could say this about the current welfare system too. As far as I know what you're suggesting doesn't happen.
  - ryanmercer 8y ago
    Not everyone is on welfare. The point is everyone should have the same basic level of resources available. Another issue is politicians already try to attack the current welfare, Examples: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/18/community-service-for-welfare/2834157/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/18/comm... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-executive-order-pushing-work-requirements-to-receive-welfare-benefits/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-executive-order-pus... Also, convicted criminals (of various varieties) are already ineligible for benefits in certain states https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/can-felons-get-welfare/ https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/can-felons-get-welfare/ which is basically what I suggested above.

andrewla 8y ago

> eliminates bureaucracy Okay -- so I register with the government as a "food provider", and I take food vouchers in exchange for non-food (like gasoline or something), and redeem them with the government for cash money. Who is making sure that I can't do that? We could have it strictly be an enforcement solution -- no bureaucracy, but a huge operational burden on the justice system. Or, more reasonably, I would have to submit to being regulated as a food provider, and would have to meet certain standards in order to do so, and would have to file appropriate paperwork to establish that I am doing so. Hell, as long as we're here, we might as well make sure that I only provide healthy food, according to what is currently thought of as healthy. Oh, and the cost of the food I sell has to be regulated; can't have me charging $20 for a hamburger, even if it is a "premium" one. Anyway, long rant, but in the end, the suggested system sounds like a mountain of bureaucracy and would probably cost way more to keep running than just giving the money directly to people.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
> I take food vouchers in exchange for non-food (like gasoline or something), and redeem them with the government for cash money. Who is making sure that I can't do that? You can't redeem the vouchers for cash, only for the good or service the vouchers are designated for. So a food voucher would let you redeem it for food. A healthcare voucher would allow you to pay a healthcare provider for whatever services you received. Edit: oh, you're saying you pretend to be a food provider. The solution to that seems simple. Lifetime ban from voucher funded industries for anyone caught doing that and forfeiture of 3x damages. That's just an example, but if you make the punishment great enough I doubt you'll have a problem with it. It seems like it's pretty easy to catch someone doing what you described. For one thing, you'd have to be registered as a business to even engage in the practice you describe. > I would have to submit to being regulated as a food provider, and would have to meet certain standards in order to do so, and would have to file appropriate paperwork to establish that I am doing so. Sure, but how do you think the welfare system works currently? You'll always have bureaucracy, but you can have it in greater or lesser degrees. I contend that my proposal would have less bureaucracy than what we currently have. You already have to register with several state agencies if you want to run a grocery store (at least in my state). Whole Foods doesn't find that too onerous. > Oh, and the cost of the food I sell has to be regulated; can't have me charging $20 for a hamburger, even if it is a "premium" one. No, that's the whole point of switching to a voucher/market based system. You as the service provider can charge whatever you want. The population, as recipients of the vouchers, can redeem them anywhere. If you charge $20 per hamburger you'll go out of business or change your prices.
- andrewla 8y ago
  > You can't redeem the vouchers for cash, only for the good or service the vouchers are designated for You are misunderstanding the scenario. I am a food provider. Someone buys food from me for vouchers -- what do I do with those vouchers? I assume I exchange them for cash from the government, otherwise, I can't pay my rent or my employees or for cleaning products. The problem with not regulating the $20 hamburger is that I sell a $1 hamburger for $20 in vouchers, and slip the customer $18 in cash (that I replenish by redeeming the vouchers, as above). Yes, I'm committing fraud, and yes, if I get caught I'll get in trouble. But if fraud is widespread then it becomes impossible to detect. Yes -- this is how food stamp and EBT programs work now, but they work with huge amounts of bureaucracy, a stated non-goal in your system. So I don't really see a differentiation here between what you're offering and what food stamps already do (poorly).
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    I realized that while you were replying and added an edit to my comment. Yes, I agree that's a problem, but you can reduce fraud by making the punishments severe enough. For instance: commit fraud, lifetime ban from the industry. I don't believe UBI is palatable to a majority of the population, but I believe a voucher based system could be if marketed appropriately.

nemo44x 8y ago

I think this would be a nice iteration on the concept of social welfare for all. The real advantage to money is that it is 100% fungible. By restricting what UBI can actually pay for (Class B money it could be called) this then limits abuse. Of course some will still abuse the system and trade their Class B money for less Class A money but there's a certain amount of fraud potential you simply need to accept, even while policing and enforcing the law.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
Yeah, I don't think you can eliminate fraud entirely. But we already have fraud in our current welfare system.

pvg 8y ago

Because we already have these and the proponents of UBI argue radically transforming them by handing people money would be better. Money is already exactly such a 'voucher'.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
No, money you can spend anywhere. A voucher has to be spent on the thing it's designated for.
- pvg 8y ago
  Right but as I said, the UBI people say 'that's overhead we can get rid of'. That's sort of the point. The thing you're proposing isn't that different from many existing forms of subsidy. In the US, for instance, you can get 'vouchers' specifically for buying food. Or specifically for buying a house.
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    Yes, but UBI isn't politically palatable to many people (probably most people). More incremental reforms to the welfare system, like what I proposed, have a greater chance of being politically realizable.
    - pvg 8y ago
      Even incremental reform can be difficult and your reform is not that much less radical than UBI. And has some curious aspects - for example, your vouchers are actually more bureaucratic than SNAP/EBT.

truckerbill 8y ago

One counter argument to that are the organisational costs, which run against one of the central arguments for UBI - more efficient distribution of the welfare pot, due to the simplified, no questions asked system. As with current voucher systems, there would definitely arise a black market as people trade them for other goods. This leaves people vulnerable to being exploited. Finally I would personally argue that people should try and think less rigidly about what is considered a good use of money and time. Recreation as an end isn't an inherently bad thing - it would lead to a larger market for content creators if you want to think purely pragmatically. There are also many cases where buying a new computer or a bike, instead of more food, would be of greater benefit to a person and society as a whole. Partly with this in mind, you could argue vouchers restrict any unintended beneficial effects of financial freedom.

ryanmercer 8y ago

Voucher sounds like something that can be revoked. "You weren't a good citizen, you murdered. Vouchers revoked!" "You weren't a good citizen, you murdered. Vouchers revoked!" Some time later "You weren't a good citizen, you were speeding. Vouchers revoked!" Then of course you can have law enforcement at various levels, or even prosecutors, specifically seek out reasons to deny vouchers to any given person. Little bribe, little political promise, little threat and bam you've shit-listed someone. Or you get voucher-casualties via prejudice, "driving while black" traffic stops/arrests for example. Nope. Nope, that sounds too Soviet Russia.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
You could say this about the current welfare system too. As far as I know what you're suggesting doesn't happen.
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  Not everyone is on welfare. The point is everyone should have the same basic level of resources available. Another issue is politicians already try to attack the current welfare, Examples: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/18/community-service-for-welfare/2834157/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/18/comm... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-executive-order-pushing-work-requirements-to-receive-welfare-benefits/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-executive-order-pus... Also, convicted criminals (of various varieties) are already ineligible for benefits in certain states https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/can-felons-get-welfare/ https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/can-felons-get-welfare/ which is basically what I suggested above.