One interpretation of UBI is reverse taxation, where you start off with a negative tax obligation instead of 0, and positive tax obligations are added on top of

One interpretation of UBI is reverse taxation, where you start off with a negative tax obligation instead of 0, and positive tax obligations are added on top of that, usually resulting in a positive balance. In that situation, is someone with a positive tax obligation really receiving UBI funds? What about if all taxes are raised slightly so that the majority of people's tax obligations remain unchanged? It all gets very pedantic, but it is generally considered both welfare and universal. It can get even more pedantic in other interpretations, especially when it isn't the government providing the income.