The student loan rip-off is hitting women hardest
Women already earn and save materially less than men – and a student loan system that, were it nay other credit product would amount to mis-selling, is making it worse, says Gina Miller
Britain’s student loan system is one of the most quietly distortionary fiscal instruments on the statute book. It applies a nine per cent charge on every pound graduates earn above a frozen threshold for up to 40 years, compounds interest at rates that would fail the FCA’s Consumer Duty test, and was sold on terms that, in any other credit product, would amount to mis-selling. This is not primarily a social issue, it is an economic one that has a direct drag on productivity, savings and long-run fiscal stability – and falls hardest on women.
Start with the marginal rate. A graduate earning above £50,270 pays 40 per cent income tax, two per cent National Insurance and nine per cent on every pound above the student loan threshold. That is a 51 per cent effective marginal rate – higher than the tax on dividends paid by a wealthy investor. A graduate earning £50,000 keeps just 49p of each additional pound. For any labour economist, this is a textbook disincentive to progression. Overtime, promotion, moving sectors: each is taxed at roughly double the rate of private equity carried interest. And the rate falls on precisely the cohort, graduates in their 20s and 30s, with the highest marginal productivity in the UK economy.
Now trace it through to capital formation. Research from MoneyShe, echoed across the financial services industry, consistently finds that women save and invest at materially lower rates than men. They are significantly overweight in cash, losing real value to inflation, and significantly underweight in equities, the asset class that actually compounds wealth. Add nine per cent of gross income disappearing into student loan deductions during the exact years, 25 to 45, when compounding does its most powerful work, and Britain is not inheriting a gender wealth gap – politicians are engineering one.
Gender pension gap
The gender pension arithmetic is also stark. Women retire with roughly 40 per cent less pension wealth than men. A woman investing £150 a month from age 25 would accumulate approximately £183,000 by age 65 at a five per cent real return. Start a decade later, at 35, and her pot is £100,000 – almost half, lost to delay. Every pound of student loan deducted in her 20s and 30s is a pound that does not compound. That is not only a personal problem, it is a fiscal one, as pensioner poverty lands on the state. The Exchequer that raids women’s payslip today pays the pension credit, housing benefit and social care bills 40 years later.
The system is also producing capital flight of the most valuable kind: human capital. The IFS has shown that the 2022 cohort will repay roughly £20,000 more over their lifetimes than the 2023 cohort, purely by accident of timing. One MoneyShe case study, a higher-rate taxpayer whose balance has grown from £57,000 to £83,000 despite seven and a half years of consistent repayment, says in her own words “I am seriously considering whether I want to live in this country.” This is how growth-critical talent is quietly disappearing from our tax base.
If any FCA-regulated lender had marketed a debt product as “like a phone contract” or “a few coffees a week,” retrospectively altered the repayment terms, and allowed compound interest to inflate balances past the original principal, the firm would be in enforcement. When the state does it, we call it policy
If any FCA-regulated lender had marketed a debt product as “like a phone contract” or “a few coffees a week,” retrospectively altered the repayment terms, and allowed compound interest to inflate balances past the original principal, the firm would be in enforcement. When the state does it, we call it policy. The six per cent cap announced by Rachel Reeves from September 2026 will not enable graduates to clear their debts, it merely slows the rate at which those debts become unrepayable.
Reform is not a spending commitment. It is a reallocation. Retrospective interest relief, a lifetime repayment cap, permanent earnings-indexation of the threshold, and a mandatory gender impact assessment would cost 0.3 – 0.4 per cent of GDP. Reforming the triple lock – which the OBR projects will cost £15.5bn a year more than earnings-linked uprating by 2029/30 – releases savings that could be directed to sorting out the student loan scandal and help address intergenerational unfairness. This is not about affordability. It is a trade-off between indexed guarantees for one generation and productive investment by another.
Under The Equality Act 2010 ministers are required to weigh the gender impact of decisions like the student loan threshold freeze, but none has been published. Is the Treasury quietly hoping that no-one will join the dots between a graduate’s distorted marginal rate, a woman’s suppressed pension pot, and the state’s escalating pensioner poverty bill?
Markets tend to price these connections eventually. Policymakers should start pricing them now.
MoneyShe Treasury Select Committee Student Loan Inquiry submission here.
MoneyShe Policy White Paper – Breaking the Gender Graduate Gap here.
Gina Miller is founder of MoneyShe and co-founder of SCM Direct