This… has been tried, many times, and been found to not work too well. First off, unless you socialize the whole economy (well, that has been tried as well), government-provided food is still bought from somebody, by the government, and typically this is seen as a superfluous and inefficient extra step.
Second, people very much like going to a supermarket and being able to pick their groceries and other necessities, and having the government distribute some sort of standardized alimentary packages to those in need does not work too well. You could have whole government-run supermarkets with their government-run logistics chains, but again, historically that hasn't worked too well (and I'm saying this as a European liberal leftist!) That said, there are some specific goods and services where a single-payer system works fairly well, such as medicine.
Third, government-supplied housing has, of course been tried as well [1], and housing projects like that often have a tendency to turn into slums sooner or later. It can be done right (first rule: you cannot isolate poor people into their own neighborhoods! [2]) but it's highly nontrivial because of, among other things, NIMBYism.
I lived in Vienna and there the city ownes a good punch of social housing since the 50s. Only thing: these houses are built at a good standard and still cheaper to live in than other comparable offers. They also cleverly mixed them in theoughout the whole city. This means the money they invested here not only reduces rents overall, it also provides housing to people in need while at the same time counterbalancing the otherwise naturally evolving contrast between rich/poor districts. ll of this benefits the social climate of the city overall because people are not segregated into their own districts as much.
Vinnea was repeatedly voted to be the city most worth living in in world.
So:
- built social houses to a higher standard not a lower one
- Don't build blocks of social houses in one area but mix them in throughout the city (e.g. mandate this by law whenever new buildings are built)
- the rent should be lower than average and the same independent of the neighbourhood
- the waiting lists for this flats should priorize people in need who are poor, minorities, ill, students, single mothers, but occasionaly mix in people from wealthier background to avoid social stigma. In vienna even wealthy people see it as an achievement to get into one of these flats.
> Government-provided food is still bought from somebody, by the government, and typically this is seen as a superfluous and inefficient extra step.
Why is this seen as superfluous? We all have to eat; so why not bulk buy food for the population, this could even replace subsidies for farmers; just buy from your own farmers in preference to importing. After all, one of the reasons for providing subsidies to farmers is to ensure that you can grow food for your population in a time of need; perhaps we should do that all of the time.
During the second world war, many were bombed out of their homes and couldn't prepare food. The British government set up British Restaurants [1] to provide nutritious meals; we could do that now, without all of the overhead of fighting a world war. This would also help to feed those children who are going hungry, as many now are [2].
Has it been tried without means testing in a capitalist system though? Where only the most basic necessities are provided to anykne who wants them, and you can buy whatever else you want beyond that?
Who is going to classify all zillions of goods offered by a modern market economy into “basic” vs “non-basic” necessities? Is triple-ply toilet paper basic? What about bananas? Beef? Coffee? A cellphone? A smartphone? After all, modern life is increasingly difficult without a Web terminal of some sort. Some luxuries become necessities over the years. It’s just utterly impossible to draw a line.
Hmm. In Finland all foodstuffs (apart from alcohol) have the same reduced VAT rate, which is somewhat easy to arrange but of course doesn’t exactly match the essential/luxury division very well. Everything from noodles to caviar has the same reduced VAT rate.
Anyway, whether something costs 1.06x or 1.23x is not a vast difference, so VAT brackets can be a useful tool, crude as they are. It’s quite a different story when it’s about something being literally free or not. You also have the problem of deciding how to ration all of those free goods, given that market forces aren’t there to control demand.
I was thinking stronger measures, e.g. you get free housing and basic utilities (with caps) if you want, and UBI for food and other basic necessities. Beyond that is up to you.
Second, people very much like going to a supermarket and being able to pick their groceries and other necessities, and having the government distribute some sort of standardized alimentary packages to those in need does not work too well. You could have whole government-run supermarkets with their government-run logistics chains, but again, historically that hasn't worked too well (and I'm saying this as a European liberal leftist!) That said, there are some specific goods and services where a single-payer system works fairly well, such as medicine.
Third, government-supplied housing has, of course been tried as well [1], and housing projects like that often have a tendency to turn into slums sooner or later. It can be done right (first rule: you cannot isolate poor people into their own neighborhoods! [2]) but it's highly nontrivial because of, among other things, NIMBYism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-income_housing