[ikeboy]

The scheme I described above leads to affordable tickets, it's basically a way of enforcing nontransferability.

But at its core, disgust with scalpers implies preference for a non Kaldor Hicks optimal world.

If someone is willing to pay $X for a ticket, and you're only willing to pay $Y<$X, it is non optimal for you to get a ticket if you'd sell your ticket for less than $X.

There's no way around that fundamental fact. At some point, if there are more people who want tickets than tickets, some process needs to determine who gets them, and wishful thinking doesn't help anyone.

[xzion]

I don't understand how your suggestion enforces non-transferability. If the scalper pay $100 for a ticket and the ticket holder receives a $50 rebate at the event, the scalper just adds $50 to the price they resell at.

Like I said, I understand the problem exists because of the economics. But there's nothing to stop us from building a system that enforces non-transferability (through identification), and preventing resale of tickets at increased prices by third parties. It just doesn't add any value for event organisers to use this new system.

[ikeboy]

You need to show id to redeem the rebate, but not to get in. Effectively enforcing a fee for transferring that's equal to the subsidy.