[sslayer]

To be a fair program it should not cause an undue burden on the participating stores.

Store A could advertise that it will provide a 10% discount to SNAP recipients. Now Stores B,C,D,etc.. have to match or beat to be competitive. This would ultimately introduce competitiveness into the market where it was meant to assist those less fortunate.

[ElevenLathe]

Offering a discount is assisting the less fortunate, as far as I can tell: They will get more food per dollar on their bridge card, costing the government less. This is (almost) the same dynamic as forbidding Medicare to negotiate drug prices, isn't it?

I suppose chains could work around this by just lowering prices in neighborhoods with a lot of people on SNAP, which would actually be even better IMO, because it means lower food prices for entire low income neighborhoods, possibly even pushing shoppers from other neighborhoods to shop in these places and bring more money into the community. I would drive to the other side of the tracks if all my groceries cost 10% less.

[datavirtue]

In Ohio we call that "driving to Kentucky."

[altairprime]

To do that without being abused by rich bargain-hunters, you can add in the Costco membership model with geo-discounted signups.

[ElevenLathe]

Now you're back to discriminating instead of treating all purchasers the same way, which was the whole point of the theorized workaround.

[altairprime]

Geo-discounted membership fees aren’t food stamps pricing discrimination under the USDA restrictions. I’m not trying to unilaterally eliminate pricing differentials based on income, I’m just trying to find a way for a grocery store to lower the costs of food, without being exploited by wealthy people, during a food stamps crisis. I suspect the USDA can’t regulate club membership discounts, but someone else can research that.