I'd much rather have tax cuts to reduce money lost through the middle man, as the middle man always wants a cut. Meaning you'd lose far more money to the process than if you were to just reduce taxes.
We've tried this and it's a dumpster fire. The government builds low income housing which is 100% people in poverty and it turns into a slum. The government subsidizes home loans and student loans and it raises the cost of housing and education. The government subsidizes food and then restaurant workers who already have access to food can't use the money to fix their car or whatever it is they really need right now.
People know what they need better than bureaucrats do. If you give them money and they need food, they buy food. If you give them money and they need transportation, they buy transportation. If you give them food and they need transportation, you messed up, which is what consistently happens in practice when you don't give them money.
Nothing about that changes at the point where the amount of "tax" someone pays goes negative. They started getting a subsidy from other taxpayers when they paid less than $15,000, not when they paid less than $0.
So if you want to call a UBI a "tax credit" then go ahead, but changing the name to "tax credit" makes no mathematical or economic difference at all.