The article here about research from the Roosevelt Institute suggests that Universal Basic Income ("UBI"), if implemented in the USA, would have a positive impact of about 2.5 trillion dollars on the US economy.
However, a rider to the argument in the article is that this effect is predicted if the measure is funded by increasing the nation's deficit, but not if it is funded by raising taxes.
In other words, this is saying that there is a positive effect on an economy by borrowing more money and spending it in the economy, thereby increasing economic activity. My view is that this would be the case irrespective of whether the borrowed money would be spent on UBI or some other scheme.
For me therefore, the article is somewhat irrelevant when considering the merits of UBI. There are merits to UBI even if it is funded by a method that doesn't provide expansion of the economy and those merits are what should be the focus for building support for the UBI concept, not the method of financing it (which is an entirely different and separable consideration for policy makers).
The main benefits of UBI are a more secure safety net for citizens, the removal of financial fear from their lives and the opening up of opportunities for people to feel fully free to redirect their lives into what is most fulfilling (and often what benefits their communities) rather than what pays the basic bills.
The Planetary CFO - working towards a sustainable World Balance Sheet.