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.
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.
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]
As opposed to the kind where the bosses pay absurdly low wages and distribute the profits to themselves?
Update: grammar, typo