The proponents of both have, in the words of a paper on the subject[1] agreed that "the two achieve the same distributive outcome through an appropriate tax-benefit system, [but] are fundamentally different from economic and ethical points of view".

Consider trying to introduce a universal health care system. You might say why do we need a system that subsidizes Jeff Bezos's health care? He can damn well pay for it himself, he might even agree since it's going to cost him less in terms of his tax contributions.

That's the equivalent of trying to sell NIT. Right out of the gate you have to not say "this is for everyone" but "it's just for the poor, but don't worry because...". That's what I mean by the marketing being different.

Of course with UBI the benefit is literally fungible, it's money. So it's really not like universal health care, but in the minds of a lot of people it is. They find it easier to accept the state providing a service if it's provided to them as well, even though it's a net cost center for them.

Humans.

1. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2052/1/MPRA_paper_2052.pdf

There are UBI plans that are definitely not equivalent to NIT plans. Some UBI plans require UBI to be taxable income for them to work. In that way they become more like guaranteed short-term (year long) loans for upper middle class/rich tax brackets. There's no similar proposal from the NIT side.