> and serves as an employment subsidy for many small businesses that would, otherwise, not employ anyone

It would serve as a generous subsidy to _any_ employer that doesn't want to pay a living wage. It's not clear to me why the federal government should be subsidizing the practices of companies like Walmart, who are already costing the government $6.2 billion in public assistance[1]. But that's effectively what an expanded EITC would do [2].

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-... [2] http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/165rothstein.pdf