[s1artibartfast]

Sovereign debt can be paid off, but not without consequences, which are the point of the concern.

Debt is not inherently good for an economy or country. It can be good if it is invested wisely with positive ROI exceeding the cost of borrowing. Borrowing for negative ROI obviously impoverishes the future for the benefit of today.

[jellicle]

> which are the point of the concern.

Well, that's not in evidence here. There is maybe one commenter total in this thread other than myself who is NOT commenting as if these are real debts, that cannot be paid off since "the UK is broke" and will somehow cause the UK to be bankrupted or harassed by debt collectors.

> It can be good if it is invested wisely with positive ROI exceeding the cost of borrowing. Borrowing for negative ROI obviously impoverishes the future for the benefit of today.

Even this is a misunderstanding of sovereign debt. The UK can pay off all its debts by tea time. The cost of borrowing can therefore be $0. The UK is choosing to make payments to debt-holders for various reasons but none of them are "we need the money to make investments and this is the only way to get it, making payments to debt-holders". The UK does not need to borrow in order to spend.

[s1artibartfast]

I think you have an overly cynical view of the other posts, and are putting words in their mouth and mine.

Yes, governments have many options to allow spending besides borrowing. they do have real downsides which are not negligible, which is why they are done less often. The ability to do something, like "pay off debt by tea time" doesn't mean it is consequence free.

There are governments that fund spending primarily by printing new currency, and you can see what some of those effects are.