You are the third guy who's trying to debate me like I'm arguing against UBI when my comment that you are replying to is for UBI. I wonder if there's something confusing about my comment.
Or maybe people really think NIT == UBI when it really doesn't. There's a dramatic difference.
Some people think NIT is UBI, and EITC is different. Some people think EITC is NIT, and UBI is different.
I'm loosely in the first group. While the goals and rhetoric and proposed levels are different, the math is pretty much the same for UBI and NIT, provided the UBI is funded by an income tax (which isn't all UBI, and IIUC isn't Yang's proposal, but is one sort of UBI). The cutoff observed in EITC was a compromise that (in my reading) made it no longer NIT.
Or maybe people really think NIT == UBI when it really doesn't. There's a dramatic difference.