This would not be a good idea. It would effectively put anyone making less than $x/hr at a 100% marginal tax bracket until they make more than $x/hr. The EITC also does not discriminate based on how much a person works, so it would also mean that after a person earns $1 from their employer, they are in a 100% tax bracket, until they make more than the threshold so that they are no longer eligible for the EITC. This would result in people choosing to not look for work if they are fired or laid off early in the year until late in the year or the following year if their earned income is below the EITC limits.
My explanation was massively simplifying how it works. There's a phase-in and phase-out curve to avoid exactly those incentive problems, it's actually implemented as a refundable credit based on annual income, not as an hourly payment boost, and there are other rules such as disallowing EITC if your unearned income is too high.
So for example, the EITC was revised such that if someone has earned income of less than $31,200 ($15 * 2080 {if someone works 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year, they will work 2080 hours}), they will receive $
y as a refundable credit, with y being ($31,200 - [earned income * 1.0]) * 0.88 (the lowest tax bracket is 12%).
If someone making $20/hour during the first six months of the year, gets laid off, and cannot find work in the next two months, will have a 100% tax rate if they find work making $20/hour for their work for the rest of the year because every dollar they earn will reduce their earnings by $0.88, and the federal income tax will take the remaining $0.12. (Someone making $20/hour for 6 months will make $20,800, and if they work an additional 13 weeks @$20/hour, they will earn $31,200).
If someone is making $12/hour at their job, if they were to receive a promotion involving them earning $14/hour but with more responsibilities, their additional income would be taxed at 100% in my above example because they would receive $0.88 less via the EITC for every additional dollar they earn, and the federal income tax would take the remaining $0.12. This is especially troubling because it gives incentives for employees to not take promotions involving earning more money, which may lead to longer-term reductions in earnings when they would not be in contention for subsequent promotions involving even higher wages.
In the above example, the earned income multiplier could be reduced to below 1.0, but this would still result in high effective marginal tax rates for low earners. It would also result in more people receiving the welfare benefit who doesn't need it.
If you want to have transfer payment welfare, it is best for the cutoff to be well into the middle class, where it is less trivial to turn down an additional dollar of income, and who will not be as harmed as much by not receiving the welfare.
If the government were to take action on the minimum wage, IMO the best solution would be that anyone making less than $x/hr is eligible for free/low-cost skills training that will help them become qualified for higher-paying jobs that tend to pay above $x/hr. (teach them to fish).
I'm much more wary about stuff like that compared to just giving people money, since it increases the size/scope of government bureaucracy, and the #1 objective of bureaucracy always ends up being growing/perpetuating itself. How many times have you heard someone in a government agency saying, "My agency is doing just just fine: no need for more resources or employees or powers. In fact, we could handle a budget cut just fine." ? If welfare programs have to exist, then it's best to do them with the absolute minimum number of government employees possible, even if it might make the overall program somewhat less targeted.
What I described doesnt need to be run by a government bureaucracy. I was thinking that non-profits (or potentially for-profit entities) could receive grants from the government in order to administer the skills training and could be paid based on outcomes.
I agree that government bureaucracy is generally bad, however, I also believe it is superior to teach low-income (skill) workers the necessary skills necessary to earn higher incomes. This reduces reliance on government and should in the long run benefit everyone.