Only if you want to count the dollar you pay but not the dollar you get back in order to claim that it's too expensive.
It ignores all of the misleading accounting that occurs in the existing system and wouldn't be there anymore.
Suppose we used to provide $1000/year value in assistance with a 10% phase out rate and then we had a 15% tax rate up to $10,000 and 25% thereafter. We switch that to $1000/year in unconditional assistance with no phase out and pay for it by changing to a flat 25% tax rate. If your accounting method is telling you that this change has caused everyone who makes more than $10,000/year to have to pay an extra $1000/year in taxes, you've missed a term. Neither the marginal nor effective tax rates have changed for anyone.
This is why many economists prefer the "negative income tax" formulation of a UBI where the UBI is a tax credit and it's possible for low income people to pay a negative amount in taxes.