3 ms·

> 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 so

> 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.

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.