Bank of Mum&Dad

I can't decide how much of a story this is. Though the fact I have felt moved to blog it probably answers that. I identify with it. Not reluctantly: I help fund my sons through university. But my motives for doing so comment further on this summary statement.
"'The bank of mum and dad is still a key contributor to students affording further education, even with the additional funding that is available to them.'"
About that additional funding: would that be the meagre burseries or the extra loan? In the former case, it's great to have something, but it's not enough to do without the latter. And while the loan is about as non-toxic as a loan can be (index linked, minimal rate of interest, collected by PAYE like a top-up tax, debt cancelled on retirement if you've not managed to pay it off, and so forth), it is still a loan and many of us don't want our kids to have more of that hanging round them when they start work than they have to. And what's more it's a bit of a disincentive to do voluntary work or to take work for the public good rather than remuneration because the interest still accrues. So, since many of us are actually funding our kids in part, is there an argument for grants paid for out of taxes and squeezing the regressive element out of the equation?
Most university students funded by parents | Education | guardian.co.uk: