• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Does the Federation tax?

Vandervecken

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
I assume member worlds still tax their populaces. But does the Federation tax?

You know, I can't remember taxes of ANY kind ever being mentioned in any show. Maybe in a time travel ep but by people in the past at some time, but nothing in the Federation. Are there any taxes at all, Fed or member world? If not, how is anything run? No budgets? Departments just run by instantly doing anything they need to do at no charge?

And what about the Cardassian Union, Romulan Empire, Klingon Empire--do they tax?

I guess this is the whole money question from a different angle.
 
I don't think so, money can be replicated and we know humons don't carry any latinum with them. I still consider the federation to be a utopian communist society where everyone gives what they can and only takes what they need.
 
"The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century."

As Nerys says above, the economics of Trek are a mess. They are no doubt purposefully obscure so that the writers don't need to make sense of them. A post - scarcity economy where anything you want is a replicator away with no money being paid to anyone is impossible to figure out.

Does the Federation tax? Without money, you won't have payroll deductions or a bill once a year, but that doesn't mean you aren't "taxed" some other way. There is no way to really know since it's never been explored on screen.
 
Machines can pretty much do anything. Crusher was able to send the Enterprise to Tau Alpha C without any crew. In the real world today we're talking about the effect driverless cars for example will have on the world economy eventually making millions of taxi, bus, truck, etc drivers unemployed. Self-Checkouts will be ubiquitous as well. How many millions of jobs there? The architecture world I'm in is constricting as architects use software to do the work of many others, and there's software on the way to do the same in the legal and medical fields.

Switzerland recently had a referendum on a Basic Income. Though the vote ended against, and regardless if that's how we'll combat poverty in the future, the fact that they had it is astonishing. All that's on the horizon now. Let alone three centuries from now when technology is just that much more advanced, and society that much...dare I say, better.
 
Money doesn't exist because the Federation has a 100% tax rate. But don't worry, that money goes straight into social services, and everyone gets free stuff for being good citizens.
 
I still find it diffcult to believe that humans will defy their nature by working for nothing...

"We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity" what a load of crap really lol

It's a socialist robotic wet dream that will never happen lol
 
I still find it diffcult to believe that humans will defy their nature by working for nothing...
"We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity" what a load of crap really lol
It's a socialist robotic wet dream that will never happen lol

If you didn't have to work, would you be a junkie?

Have there been moments during work where you felt fantastic doing your job? You've heard very successful people say, knowing what it does for them inwardly, they'd do their work for free if they could.

I find crap statements on "human nature" that don't adequately account for the fact that people would do very hard work because of how it would make them feel if they could, rather than live lives of unsatisfying masturbation. The reasons we tell ourselves we work may change (so much the better!), but we'd still do things that matter, once we knew such things were possible.

(EDIT: Edited for clarity.)
 
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying, Arpy, and ideally that will make up *more* of a person's motivation for working in the future. But I also agree somewhat with those that scoff, because 1. as a species, we don't just measure success against ourselves, we measure it against others, and if that has changed by the 24th century, it will be because we have dangerously re-engineered (genetically or pharmaceutically) what it means to be human, and 2. those that control the means (Federation Council? Starfleet?) would have to be more altruistic and less selfish than I've ever consistently experienced from those in power (rare exceptions like President Washington - maybe) on an ongoing basis, even through electoral changes over time, to not at some point decide that those "welfare queens" that don't contribute and only draw on the system can just bloody well figure out how to provide for themselves.

I think the Federation probably *does* "tax" - but they wouldn't necessarily call it that, because it wouldn't need to be financial. It would probably be some sort of mandatory minimum contribution from each world or polity *of people and effort* toward the goals of the overall Federation: defense and security, research and exploration, etc. "Welcome to the Federation. Here's your replicators, and we've added your system to all of the regular patrols to keep the Romulans and Orion pirates away. We'll really appreciate the enthusiasm of the cadets coming to Starfleet Academy from your world this fall." ;)
 
The economics of the Federation never made sense and should have been left even more vague than they were. We simply lack the language or concepts to accurately portray a post scarcity, non materialistic society.
The general consensus from canon is that (at least internally) the Federation runs without money by Picard's time, so therefore without tax. But how exactly that works, and what stops Joe Regular from just replicating the bits for his own superfleet of Romulans warbirds, or indeed why Joseph Sisko's waiters come to work every day for free is simply not laid out in canon.
 
If the Federation uses money - yes they tax the populace.
If the Federation doesn't use money - than each world is expected to contribute a certain level of resources for the greater good, which would be a stealth "tax" on the populace of each member planet.
 
The franchise had always been contradictory about the economy because they don't care. The shows aren't about future currency exchanges and derivative markets. The economy is whatever filler throw away line a character says about it in any given episode/movie.
 
Replicator technology has addressed scarcity and currency has been abolished, so, no taxes.
I want Picard's vinyard. What's that you say? Only one of those? Ok, give me an apartment with Kirk's view of the bay. There's got to be a few dozen of those.

This is another one of those "no money in the Federation" threads, isn't it?
Welllllll, more like a HOW does the Federation not have money.
 
I came across this article that claimed that the franchise may have been contradictory about the economic situation within the Federation - http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/economy.htm.
"May have been" is putting it mildly. The series is completely contradictory on this point.
The best I can make of all the contradictions is that the Federation abandoned money at some point between TOS and TNG, with the advent or at least refining and generalisation of the replicator technology. Even that's not consistent, but it's better...
Other species still use currencies so the Federation maintain some form of exchange with these cultures.
Some of the issues are ridiculous though. At Quarks people were paying for replicated drinks.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top