Lots of people are arguing governments should provide all citizens with an unconditional basic income. One problem with this is that it would be very expensive. If the government would give each person say 30 % of GDP per capita to each person (not a very high standard of living), then that would force them to raise 30 % of GDP in taxes to cover for that.

On the other hand, means-tested benefits have disadvantages too. It is administratively costly. Receiving them is seen as shameful in many countries. Most importantly, it is hard to create a means-tested system that doesn't create perverse incentives for those on benefits, since when you start working, you will both lose your benefits and start paying taxes under such a system. That may mean that the net income can be a very small proportion of the gross income for certain groups, incentivizing them to stay unemployed.

One middle route I've been toying with is that the government could provide people with cheap goods and services. People who were satisfied with them could settle for them, whereas those who wanted something more fancy would have to pay out of their own pockets. The government would thus provide people with no-frills food - Soylent, perhaps - no-frills housing, etc, for free or for highly subsidized prices (it is important that they produce enough and/or set the prices so that demand doesn't outstrip supply, since otherwise you get queues - a perennial problem of subsidized goods and services).

Of course some well-off people might choose to consume these subsidized goods and services, and some poor people might not choose to do that. Still, it should in general be very redistributionary. The advantage over the basic income system is that it would be considerably cheaper, since these goods and services would only be used by a part of the population. The advantage over the means-tested system is that people will still be allowed to use these goods and services if their income goes up, so it doesn't create perverse incentives.

Another advantage with this system is that it could perhaps rein in rampant consumerism somewhat. Parts of the population will be habituated to smaller apartments and less fancy food. Those who want to distinguish themselves from the masses - who want to consume conspiciously - will also be affected, since they will have to spend less to stand out from the crowd.

I guess this system to some extent exist - e.g. in many countries, the government does provide you with education and health care, but rich people opt to go for private health-care and private education. So the idea isn't novel - my suggestion is just to take it a bit further.