[KekDemaga]

The cost of food goes up, so we give say 40% of the population money to spend on food. This increases the demand so the cost of food goes up again, so we increase the benefit. This goes on forever, take a look at student loans in the US before federal intervention and now.

[EGreg]

What if you tax it back?

You give the money, they spend it on the providers of their choice, and then you tax the money back out.

You say, why would the providers accept it? Because they have to. It would only get the minimum a person needs to survive.

Or a better way with less force on producers: a single payer system like SNAP program, that mandates producers sell basic food amount for a certain price if someone comes with food stamps. Because everyone needs food. Why would proucers accept this? Because they make up for it on volume of everyone who has the food stamps (in this scenario, everyone).

Same as why doctors currently accept Medicare even though it pays less on average.

[KekDemaga]

> and then you tax the money back out.

What do you mean by that? Tax producers at a higher level to remove the subsidized profits from the system? That will have the same effect as before except higher taxes and decreased supply will be the cause of the price increase instead of simply decreased supply. As prices rise more people will need that assistance, thus causing prices to increase faster and faster.

[specialist]

Tuition went up because the feds and states stopped subsidizing tuition. Student loan burden skyrocketed because the feds privatized the game.

[randomdata]

Tuition costs seem to follow the enrolment rates pretty closely. It seems the biggest factor is the fact that almost nobody attended postsecondary schools in the past, and now almost everyone does. Supply and demand.