Edit: “ For all three designs, enacting a UBI and paying for it by increasing the federal debt would grow the economy”

Yes, I quoted that in my other comment that sparked your edit.

The above is from the cited paper. There’s zero growth if you fund it through taxes

I also quoted the two paragraphs after your quote, and the paragraph before your quote, all of which discussed tax-funded UBI. I even bolded some text. And yet,

You still missed this:

However, when the model is adapted to include distributional effects, the economy grows, even in the tax-financed scenarios. This occurs because the distributional model incorporates the idea that an extra dollar in the hands of lower income households leads to higher spending. In other words, the households that pay more in taxes than they receive in cash assistance have a low propensity to consume, and those that receive more in assistance than they pay in taxes have a high propensity to consume. Thus, even when the policy is tax- rather than debt-financed, there is an increase in output, employment, prices, and wages.

Let me repeat that again, since you have missed it three times now:

Thus, even when the policy is tax- rather than debt-financed, there is an increase in output, employment, prices, and wages.

Nothing you said about tax-funded UBI is reflected in that report. You have blatantly misrepresented their position.