I take your point. I think vouchers for consumption of education, housing, etc. are associated with government spending policy. Spending is covered by government receipts (including taxes and fees) or the issue of fiat money or the issue of government debt. Theoretically an income tax can be progressive, since higher taxes can be imposed on higher incomes, whereas a sales tax is considered regressive. In practice the highest income earners often pay lower taxes measured as a percentage of their income. Mitt Romney famously blundered when he said 47% are takers, who pay no federal income taxes, and the taxpayers are makers. Even super-wealthy families (e.g., Romney, Bezos, Musk) might show zero or negative income in some periods and thus may also qualify for low income government tax deductions or tax credits. The earned income tax credit is for families with little or no investment income during a tax period. That is not the same as a voucher, but rather, it means income can be saved or spent at the earner's discretion instead of paying taxes up to the extent of the credit.
Joe