[johnjac]

The problem with this type of wealth redistribution is that the poor are often consumers of the same products and services served by min wage jobs. This is one of many reasons I support unconditional basic income. It allows labor to be accurately priced in the market, without raising cost to the poor.

[thomasfoster96]

I'd agree, but raising the minimum wage is a relatively good alternative to doing nothin given unconditional basic income is merely a political dream in most jurisdictions. The US has such a low minimum wage given the wealth within the economy it's hard to see a rise having much of an impact.

[w1ntermute]

An EITC would more effectively incentivize the poor to work than unconditional basic income.

[ashark]

1) An EITC fails to realize the efficiencies of consolidating or eliminating other forms of aid that basic income could.

2) The incentive to work under basic income is having more than barely enough money to scrape by. Wages will go up until this is a sufficient incentive. My money's on wages not having to rise much at all, if any, to achieve this. I wouldn't even be surprised if average compensation dropped a bit under basic income.

3) An EITC doesn't support entrepreneurship and small businesses the way basic income could.

[dragonwriter]

> An EITC would more effectively incentivize the poor to work than unconditional basic income.

Maybe, but:

(1) This is an assertion provided without evidence, and (2) The purpose of the basic income isn't to incentivize poor people to work, anyway, and (3) Poor people, even before considering EITC or Basic Income, have more than sufficient incentive to work, what they generally lack is opportunity to work with their current skill set, and opportunity to gain the skills needed to work where it is in demand without trading off present necessities.

[thomasfoster96]

I should've clarified: by impact I mean negative impact on business costs and employment rates.

[dllthomas]

Assuming it doesn't taper, yes.

[fweespeech]

> The problem with this type of wealth redistribution is that the poor are often consumers of the same products and services served by min wage jobs. This is one of many reasons I support unconditional basic income. It allows labor to be accurately priced in the market, without raising cost to the poor.

Yes but labor is less than half of the cost for everything. One of the most labor intensive is food [growing -> market -> consumer] and its still not even 50%.

https://www.fmi.org/docs/facts-figures/marketingcosts.pdf?sf... http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/307995/aer780d_1_.pdf

Its 38.5%. The impacts is similar on other areas where the minimum wage laborer is also the minimum wage consumer.

The pay increase still flows ~60% to the people on minimum wage and is the most effective method that is politically feasible. [e.g. Backed by a large portion of a major political party]

Ideally, raising the standard deduction to the poverty level for 1 person as well would be ideal to spread things out more. Of course, you'd need to raise the marginal tax rates [e.g. Money after $11,700/year would be taxed at a higher rate] to do that since it'll cost hundreds of billions otherwise :p [e.g. $6,300 -> $11,700]

http://familiesusa.org/product/federal-poverty-guidelines

[afarrell]

You would also want to have the IRS automatically fill out the tax returns of people making less than 3x the poverty line. Otherwise the poor and frazzled would not take advantage of this.

[jefurii]

> this type of wealth redistribution

As opposed to the kind where the bosses pay absurdly low wages and distribute the profits to themselves?

Update: grammar, typo

[icebraining]

No, clearly as opposed to UBI. Did you read the whole post?