Eh I'm not saying it's perfect but I think a few pieces are missing from your version:
- The government subsidized price to make it a low enough cost because it's certainly can't be as expensive as a golden corral
- The incentive for a private restaurateur to want to open one of these
This is where the government can actually help make something, which could be funded by a reasonably modest tax if people were willing to pay it.
> changing local government (which is corrupt and inefficient)
All the more reason to work to change it IMO. I bet part of the reason it gets corrupt so easily is because few actually care given how little it really does for them (when the essentials like trash are on autopilot and many other issues don't affect the average resident that directly). While not without its risks and complications, a more involved local government can also mean a more politically aware and involved base of citizens. If a city actually did all these things, local policy changes would actually have a bigger effect that residents would care about.
This is all a very rough draft, I'm sure there are plenty more holes in this. But I think it would be interesting to spend some more time ironing it out.
so the restaurant will be funded mainly on taxes of the people living in this city instead of the food itself? Like some sort of all inclusive resort or cruise?
Will citizens take out loans to live in the city just like college?
Admittedly I'm not from the US , but regardless I get the feeling that you might be seeing government subsidies for public services as more bizarre and infrequent than they actually are.
Does public transport ever get subsidized at the local government level in the US? Would this make the idea of catching a subway or bus as bizarre to you as the idea of taxpayer-subsidized community food halls?
I'm not sure what ratio makes sense but let's say 50/50 taxes/paying. They are paying with taxes, there's no need for loans. It also means they have a cheap subsidized food option with the ability to socialize at the same time. The restaurants could also have other community center like aspects too.
There's also no reason it has to be AYCE style, it could just be cheap subsidized food markets with communal eating encouraged in every neighborhood. Great way to get to know neighbors as well.
50/50 taxes/paying for who? Someone who makes $30k and someone who makes $300k might both only eat $10k of food a year, would the tax be a flat fee or a % of income?
If it's a flat fee, it could be done as a business, akin to how costco works where they wholesale you food for a membership.
- The government subsidized price to make it a low enough cost because it's certainly can't be as expensive as a golden corral
- The incentive for a private restaurateur to want to open one of these
This is where the government can actually help make something, which could be funded by a reasonably modest tax if people were willing to pay it.
> changing local government (which is corrupt and inefficient)
All the more reason to work to change it IMO. I bet part of the reason it gets corrupt so easily is because few actually care given how little it really does for them (when the essentials like trash are on autopilot and many other issues don't affect the average resident that directly). While not without its risks and complications, a more involved local government can also mean a more politically aware and involved base of citizens. If a city actually did all these things, local policy changes would actually have a bigger effect that residents would care about.
This is all a very rough draft, I'm sure there are plenty more holes in this. But I think it would be interesting to spend some more time ironing it out.