I would have thought that nationalised services would bring in revenue to the treasury, since it’s no longer going to a corporation. I would understand why the cost might be greater than the income, but the running costs are sky high and income is still zero. Is the assumption that the government is providing these services for free or something?
They provide income at low setting
But unless specifically provided for free, all services would have income coming in to offset the cost of operation. This is often net negative, but they still certainly exist even at very high funding levels. It’s really not realistic to how actual government services operate in the real world.
I suppose so, yeah. Some taxes bring income and cost. Maybe that should be true for these as well.
Yeah, and this is shown in other policies, such as the wealth, mansion, and if I remember correctly the automation tax.
Really the “free public service” should be a separate option.
Oh also, the one policy that already is like that - free bus passes - should have a /-shaped effect on Generational Wealth Gap. I’d imagine that policy means you increasingly give free passes to more and more of your population. At max it’d be for everybody. So then that should not affect Generational Wealth Gap at all anymore, but it should boost Poor Income or Everyone Income or something like that.