[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.