If you earn $2k, $2000 is 100% of your income. If you earn $20k, $2000 is 10% of your income. If you earn $200K, $2000 1% of your income. This is why [head tax

If you earn $2k, $2000 is 100% of your income. If you earn $20k, $2000 is 10% of your income. If you earn $200K, $2000 1% of your income. This is why [head taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax) are the textbook example of regressive taxation. And it's why giving out a UBI [a head rebate?] is inherently & unambiguously progressive. EITC is more complicated. By nature of being a tax credit, any EITC must phase in as taxable income increases. In the current system, you get more money from the EITC if you earn $16K than if you earn $10K. The more you expand it, the larger the phase-in section needs to be. The current system also phases out with higher income levels, so if you earn $200K, you're won't get anything from the EITC. This makes it 'more progressive' than UBI, when considered in isolation for the appropriate income range. But this aspect of the EITC is already in the machinery for income tax. The phase out window roughly corresponds to moving the 25% tax threshold half-way into the 15% one. A UBI wouldn't be implemented without a change to income tax, and most advocates would largely pay for UBI with additional income taxes. At the lowest income levels, a system with a UBI is by definition more progressive than one with an EITC. Everything else is up to the implementation.