| Updated:
Debating student loan interest distracts from the far larger and permanent national debt and its interest payments, which place a compounding, long-term financial liability on younger taxpayers who already face rising costs and a weakening worker-to-retiree ratio, says Martin Beck
The campaign to cut student loan interest rates is welcome. A system where balances rise despite repayments has always felt questionable.
But while Westminster debates the interest rate on a £236bn student loan book, it remains largely silent about the £2.8tn national debt — and more than £100bn a year in interest payments — that today’s younger taxpayers are expected to service.
We’re debating the bill at the table while ignoring the mortgage on the house.
Student debt is visible. It feels personal. National debt is largely invisible, vastly larger, permanent and economically more significant. Public sector net debt is close to 100 per cent of GDP. Debt interest alone costs more than £350m a day — more than defence and close to the education budget. Before a single nurse is paid or road repaired, £100bn must be found simply to finance yesterday’s borrowing.
Student loans expire. National debt perpetuates.
Reducing student loan interest may ease a grievance. Failing to confront sovereign borrowing quietly hands a far heavier bill to the same generation.
And the arithmetic is tightening.
The UK’s fertility rate has fallen to around 1.5 children per woman — well below replacement. The ratio of workers to pensioners has roughly halved since the turn of the century and is projected to fall further. Fewer working-age taxpayers will finance rising age-related spending alongside a vast stock of accumulated debt.
A big ask
Even if debt stabilises as a share of GDP, itself a big ask, a shrinking worker-to-retiree ratio means each worker carries more of the load. Pension and healthcare spending rise mechanically with ageing. Add £100bn-plus in annual debt interest and the squeeze intensifies.
Taxation is already highly concentrated. The top 10 per cent of income tax payers contribute around 60 per cent of income tax receipts. Graduates are disproportionately represented in those higher income bands. A graduate may resent a rising student loan balance — but that same graduate is also disproportionately represented among those financing debt interest over decades.
Meanwhile, younger households, whether they have a degree or not, face weaker real wage growth than previous generations. Housing costs absorb a far higher share of income. The tax burden is at its highest sustained level in post-war history. For many graduates, student loan repayments function as an additional marginal tax of up to nine per cent.
All this while deficits averaging four to five per cent of GDP have become normal outside crisis periods.
Borrowing is politically convenient. It protects current commitments and defers hard choices. The electoral incentives are clear: older voters turn out in higher numbers; governments protect existing entitlements; borrowing becomes the release valve.
But spreading cost forward is not eliminating it, it is shifting it.
Student debt dominates headlines because it is personal and immediate. National debt is tolerated because it is collective and delayed. But delay does not erase obligation. It compounds it.
If fairness is the standard, apply it consistently. Is it fair to run structural deficits in normal times? Is it fair to finance at today’s levels through borrowing that tomorrow’s workers must service? Is it fair that younger taxpayers shoulder rising housing costs, high marginal tax rates and mounting debt interest while starting from a weaker asset base than previous generations?
Reforming student loan interest may polish the edges of the system. It does not confront the scale of the national balance sheet.
Until we widen the debate beyond tuition fees to sovereign borrowing, we are not protecting the next generation. We are handing them a compounding liability — and calling it compassion.
